Disposed

Gopal Sagar v. Shri Himanshu Tiwari, Joint Director

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jul 2023CONT/169/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged inaction regarding a direction to create posts. The High Court noted the respondent authority passed an order on 3.9.2020 addressing the matter. Finding no surviving cause for proceeding further, the court disposed of the contempt petition while allowing petitioners to challenge the new order.

What did the court decide?

Says the contempt petition stands disposed of. Petitioners are at liberty to challenge the order dated 3.9.2020 in accordance with law.

Gopal Sagar Vs Shri Himanshu Tiwari, Joint… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CONT No. 169 of 2020

¶5

Gopal Sagar S/o Shri Prem Lal Sagar, Aged About 32 Years

¶6

Satyawan S/o Mahavir Aged About 34 Years

¶7

Rohan Jal S/o Mahavir Jal Aged About 32 Years

¶8

Rajesh Dumri S/o Shiv Prasad Dumri Aged About 37 Years

¶9

A/1 to A/4 R/o Budhwari Bazar, Ward No. 3 Sakti PS Sakti District JanjgirChampa Chhattisgarh

¶10

Hulasram Jaiswal S/o Shri Kapil Jaiswal, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Boirdih, Sakti Tahsil Sakti District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

¶11

Khilawan Patel S/o Kunjram Sahu Aged About 43 Years Village Dorki, Tahsil Sakti District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

¶12

Prakash Sindur S/o Shri Rusi Sindur Aged About 44 Years R/o Bus Stand Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Society Chowk Sakti PS Sakti District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Laxmi Prasad Sarthi S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Budhwari Bazar, Ward No. 3, Sakti PS Sakti District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶14

Santosh Kumar Kuldeep S/o Shri Pardeshi Ram Aged About 48 Years R/o Budhwari Bazar, Ward No. 3, Sakti PS Sakti District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶15

10.Subhash Machkhand S/o Shri Kamal Lochan Machkhand Aged About 36 Years Budhwar Bazar, Ward No. 3 Sakti PS Sakti District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶16

11.Radhe Lal Rathore S/o Shri Shatrughan Lal Rathore Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Sarhar Post Sarhar District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶17

12.Horilal S/o Harihar Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Boirdih, Sakti Tahsil Sakti District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶18

13.Bihari S/o Nirbhay Ram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Boirdih, Sakti Tahsil Sakti District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

¶19

14.Thanda Ram S/o Adhari Gabel Aged About 36 Years Village Dorki, Tahsil Sakti District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

¶20

15.Saheb Lal S/o Shri Mohar Say Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Boirdih, Sakti Tahsil Sakti District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

¶21

---- Petitioner

¶22

Versus

¶23

Shri Himanshu Tiwari, Joint Director Department Of Urban Administration

¶24

¶25

And Development Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶26

---- Respondent

¶27

(Cause title downloaded from CIS periphery)

¶28

For Petitioners Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent Mr. Sunil Otwani and Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocates

¶29

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶30

5/7/2023

¶31

This petition has filed against the inaction on the part of the competent authority/respondent in non-compliance of the order(s) dated 28.7.2016 passed in WPS Nos. 3214/2016, 3222/2016, 3229/2016 and 3216/2016, 3219/2016. The relevant para 4 of the said order reads thus :

¶32

“4. In view of the above, without commenting upon merits of the case, this petition is disposed off at this stage with a direction to the Joint Director to consider the proposal of the Nagar Palika Parishad and take appropriate decision in the matter of creation of posts. In the event, the sanction is granted for creation of the posts, it would be open for the Nagar Palika Parishad to consider the petitioners’ claim of regularisation however in accordance with the contents of circular dated 05.03.2008 and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).”

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in pursuance of the direction of this High Court, the competent authority has already scrutinised the issue and passed a detailed order on 3.9.2020, wherein, it

¶34

¶35

has been found that creation of additional post is not possible and accordingly, their representation(s) has been decided.

¶36

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the directions given by this Court as also reply and further, the action taken by the competent authority by passing an order on 3.9.2020, this Court is of the view that nothing survives for proceeding further in the contempt petition.

¶37

Accordingly, the contempt petition stands disposed of. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the said order in accordance with law. Sd/-

¶38

( Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶39

Judge

¶40

Shyna

Gopal Sagar v. Shri Himanshu Tiwari, Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Sagar v. Shri Himanshu Tiwari, Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilharan Karsh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Veerendra Kumar Vs Shri Predeshi Sidhart Komal

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Sharma Vs Shri Sanjeev Ranjan

Malik Ram Vs Yashwant Kumar

Mohar Lal Vs Yashwant Kumar