1 2026:CGHC:19723 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 500 of 2026 1 - Sangita Yadav Wd/o Late Rohanlal Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 22, Mouhari Bhatha, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Sonu Yadav S/o Late Rohanlal Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 22, Mouhari Bhatha, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Mamta Yadav D/o Rohanal Yadav Aged About 25 Years W/o Lakeshwar Yadav, R/o Village- Piprahi, Tahsil- Chhura, Distt. Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 - Anusuiya Bai D/o Kuleshwar Yadav Aged About 50 Years W/o Pritam Yadav, R/o Village- Khallari, Tahsil- Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Prembai D/o Kuleshwar Yadav Aged About 45 Years W/o Kumar Yadav, R/o Village- Khallari, Tahsil- Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Divisional Manager, East Cost Railway, Sambalpur, Distt. Sambalpur (Odisa) ... Respondent(s) SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.04.30 11:05:09 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate For Respondent/UOI : Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSGI assisted by Shri Neeraj Baghel, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 28/04/2026 Heard. 2. Present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Class-I, Mahasamund in MJC No. S-04/2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had instituted Succession Case No. S-15 of 2021 before the learned First Civil Judge Class-I, Mahasamund seeking grant of Succession Certificate on account of death of one Kuleshwar, who was a Trackman in the Railway Department and has died in harness on 09.12.2010. It is submitted that in the said proceedings, the respondents/Railway authorities contested the claim, however, the trial court vide order dated 24.01.2023 declared the petitioners to be the legal successors of the deceased Kuleshwar. 4. He further submits that upon enquiry, the Railway authorities had informed the petitioners that a sum of Rs. 4,87,204/- was payable 3 towards the departmental dues of the deceased. However, despite issuance of the succession certificate, the said amount was not paid in full. Subsequently, the respondents took a stand that only an amount of Rs. 2,81,035/- was payable and that the remaining amount was not due which according to the petitioners is contrary to their earlier communication. 5. On the aforesaid premise, the petitioners preferred an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 24.01.2023 and making false submissions before the learned trial court as well as the non-payment of the entire amount of Rs. 4,87,204/- as per the Succession Order dated 24.01.2023. The said application, however came to be dismissed by the learned trial court holding that no case of contempt is prima facie appears to be made out, which order is under challenge in the present petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/UOI, appears on advance copy and submits that the order dated 24.01.2023 passed in the succession proceedings is merely declaratory in nature, declaring the petitioners as legal heirs of the deceased Kuleshwar and does not contain any specific direction for payment of any particular amount. It is further submitted that due to a bonafide calculation error, an incorrect amount was initially communicated, which was subsequently rectified and appropriate departmental action has also been initiated against the erring officer of the respondent. Therefore the learned trial court has rightly considered that no contempt is made out 4 against the authorities. He further submits that even otherwise, assailing the order dated 09.01.2026 whereby the application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings has been dismissed, the same is not maintainable and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. The present contempt proceedings arise out of the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the learned First Civil Judge Class-I, Mahasamund in Succession Case No. S-15/2021. A plain reading of the said order reveals that the same merely declares the petitioners as legal heirs of the deceased Kuleshwar and entitles them to receive the dues, quantified at Rs. 4,87,204/-. However, there is no specific or mandatory direction issued to the respondent/UOI to make payment of the said amount to the petitioners rather, the order is declaratory in nature, recognizing the petitioners as the legal heirs of the deceased. Although it appears from the document Annexure P/2 that there was a calculation error on the part of the respondent authorities it further transpires from the impugned order that the respondents have tendered apology with regard to such erroneous calculation of the departmental dues. 9. While considering the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union And Ors. vs Dharam Godha And Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 1, the learned trial court has held that no case of contempt is made out as there is no wilful violation of any order or direction passed 5 by any court and has consequently rejected the application. 10. In the present case,the material on record indicates that the discrepancy in the amount arose on account of a calculation error for which the respondents have tendered an explanation and initiated departmental proceedings. Apparently, such circumstances do not establish any willful disobedience of the court’s order and no contempt proceedings can be initiated against the order passed in Succession Case and the learned trial court has rightly rejected the same by the impugned order. 11. After going through the entire documents annexed with the present petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has rightly concluded that no case of contempt is made out against the respondent authorities. The order impugned does not suffers from any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge