Disposed¶24

Yogendra Kumar Dubey v. Shri Sanjay Agarwal

Chhattisgarh HC9 Nov 2025CONT/1656/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; CONT No. 1656 of 2025; Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas; contempt petition alleging non-compliance with WP No. 5219/1999 order dated 01.07.2019 (quashing termination, consequential benefits); WA No. 252/2020 dismissed 11.10.2023; gratuity Rs. 1,69,754/- sanctioned 25.04.2025 with Rs. 59,227/- HRA deduction; held calculation disputes lie outside contempt jurisdiction; disposed with liberty to seek remedy under law; alternative remedy; contempt jurisdiction limits.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of without initiating contempt proceedings; liberty granted to the applicants to pursue remedies available under the law against the impugned calculation; the Court expressly did not examine the correctness of the gratuity calculation. ¶24

Yogendra Kumar Dubey Vs Shri Sanjay Agarwal — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed contempt of the order dated 01.07.2019 in WP No. 5219/1999 by deducting Rs. 59,227/- towards HRA in calculating gratuity, i.e., whether the writ order was complied with in its letter and spirit.

¶22

Court's answer

Whether the respondents have rightly calculated the amount and whether they have complied with the writ order in its letter and spirit are not the subject matter of the instant contempt petition; an applicant aggrieved by the impugned calculation may take recourse to remedies available under the law, but not under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The contempt petition is disposed of, granting the applicants liberty to take recourse to the remedy available to them under the law.

¶24

Key takeaways

It is made clear that this Court has not examined whether the calculation of the amount is wrong or right, and that question shall be decided at the appropriate stage by the appropriate forum under the law.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts — alleged deliberate non-compliance with order dated 01.07.2019 in WP No. 5219/1999 (whereby disciplinary orders Annexures P/23, P/25, P/27 dated 29.04.1998, 10.09.1998, 22.12.1998 were set aside, termination quashed and consequential benefits granted; writ appeal WA No. 252/2020 dismissed on 11.10.2023) — authorities sanctioned gratuity of Rs. 1,69,754/- vide memo dated 25.04.2025 but deducted Rs. 59,227/- towards HRA — applicants sought contempt for non-compliance 'in its letter and spirit' — HELD: whether the amount was rightly calculated and whether the writ order was complied with in its letter and spirit are not subject matter of contempt jurisdiction; aggrieved applicants must avail remedies under law — contempt petition disposed of with such liberty; Court did not examine correctness of the calculation, leaving it to the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage.

2025:CGHC:54537

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1656 of 2025

¶5

1 - Yogendra Kumar Dubey S/o Late Achchhelal Dubey, Aged About 61 Years R/o. Near Omkar Nursing Home, Ware House Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Vidyavati Dubey Wd/o Late Achchhelal Dubey, Aged About 80 Years R/o. Near Omkar Nursing Home, Ware House Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Vinay Dubey S/o Late Achchhelal Dubey, Aged About 58 Years R/o. Near Omkar Nursing Home, Ware House Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Seema Mishra D/o Late Achchhelal Dubey, Aged About 55 Years R/o. Near Omkar Nursing Home, Ware House Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Shri Sanjay Agarwal Working As Collector Cum Authorsied Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

2 - Shri Sunil Sodhi, Currently Posted As O.S.D. Apex Bank, Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Shri Prabhat Mishra, Working As Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

10/11/2025

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondents have deliberately not complied with the order passed by this Court on 01.07.2019 in WP No. 5219/1999 wherein following order has been

¶15

passed:-

¶16

“31. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority vide Annexures P/23, P/25 and P/27, dated 29.04.1998, 10.09.1998 and 22.12.1998 respectively is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside.

¶17

Since this court is setting aside the impugned orders on the ground of technicalities of it being violative of principles of natural justice, as a natural consequence the matter ought to have been remitted back to the disciplinary authority for conducing a fresh department enquiry altogether. However, since the delinquent employee in the instant case has, pending

¶18

Digitally signed by ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.11 16:58:40 +0530

¶19

¶20

the petition, died and as such fresh enquiry is not practical any further.

¶21

Therefore, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the writ petition is allowed and on the quashment of the order of termination and also quashment of the orders passed by the Joint Registrar and Board of Revenue. The petitioners are ordered to be entitled for all consequential benefits that would flow to the petitioners on the termination order getting set aside/quashed.”

¶22

He would further submit that this order has been assailed by the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited before Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by filing WA No. 252/2020 which has been dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2023. After that they moved representation before the authorities and the respondent authorities vide memo dated 25.04.2025 has sanctioned gratuity amount of Rs. 1,69,754/- but Rs. 59,227/- has been deducted towards HRA. He would further submit that the respondent authorities have wrongly calculated the amount without following the direction issued by this Court which has caused loss to the applicant and would pray for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondent authorities for not complying the order passed by this Court in its letter and spirit.

¶23

Since the respondents have already complied with the order passed by this Court and whether they have rightly calculated the amount or not and whether they have complied the order passed by this Court in its letter and spirit, are not the subject matter of the instant contempt petition. If the applicants are aggrieved with the impugned calculation of the amount, they can very well take recourse of remedy available to them under the law but not under the contempt jurisdiction this Court.

¶24

In view of the abovestate position, the contempt petition is disposed of granting liberty to the applicants to take recourse of remedy available to them under the law.

¶25

It is made clear that this Court has not examined whether calculation of amount is wrong or right and the same shall be decided in appropriate stage by appropriate forum under the law.

¶26

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶27

Arun

Yogendra Kumar Dubey v. Shri Sanjay Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar Dubey v. Shri Sanjay Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Basanti Vs Mr. Bheem Singh

Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Kushwaha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Paul Mikki Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shabnam Khatun Vs State of Chhattisgarh

K.N. Sharma Vs Mr. J. Masih