The High Court at Bilaspur dismissed a contempt petition filed by a Tuberculosis Health Visitor. The petitioner claimed the salary was withheld due to a pending writ petition, violating previous court orders. The court held that no deliberate disobedience was established as the matter was decided on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CONT No. 884 of 2020
Abhishek Singh, S/o. Shri Vimal Kumar Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Working As Tuberculosis Health Visitor, R/o. Ram Ashrey Bhawan, Arvind Nagar, Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Tahsil & District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
ORDER
02-12-2020
Heard.
following orders:-
“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2017 as Tuberculosis Health Visitor on contract basis and the contact was extended from time to time. He would further submit that the petitioner while was rendering the services, he filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.2551/2019 for equal pay and equal work, wherein notices were issued on 05.04.2019 (Annexure P-6). Thereafter, all of a sudden, the salary of the petitioner is not being paid from April, 2020 though certain days salary earlier to it have been paid. He would further submit that the petitioner is being told that unless & until he withdraws the earlier petition, his salary would not be released. He would further submit that under the circumstances, he initially made a representation to the Chief Medical & Health Officer, District Bilaspur and subsequently has made the representation to the Collector to release the salary and the same may be directed to be decided.
2
2. From the perusal of the documents, it appears that the petitioner has earlier preferred a writ petition bearing WPS No.2551 of 2019 wherein notices have been issued. In any case, irrespective of the outcome of the earlier writ petition, if the petitioner is still working and discharging his job, the salary cannot be withheld. Therefore, under the circumstances and for the reasons for which the petitioner has preferred the petition, the petitioner is directed to file the representation before the respondents No.3 & 4 within a period of two weeks from today and on such representation being filed, the office of respondents No.3 & 4 in co-ordination with each other will decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. It is further observed that if it is found that the salary of the petitioner is withheld without any reason, the same shall be released forthwith.
3. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.”
Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge
Aks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition is maintainable when the representation directed by the High Court was decided without deliberate disobedience.
Abhishek Singh
Dr. Saransh Mittar
Dr. Pramod Mahajan
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
