Disposed

Smt. Savita Rajput v. Shri Siddharth Komal Singh Pardeshi

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jul 2026CONT/1278/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition over non-payment of retiral dues within the time fixed by a writ order; dues were paid about a year late. The court disposed of the petition directing respondents to pay 6% per annum interest on retiral dues from the expiry of the stipulated period till actual payment, and dropped contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay 6% p.a. interest on retiral dues from 17.05.2025 till actual payment, within 60 days; contempt proceedings dropped.

Smt. Savita Rajput Vs Shri Siddharth Komal Singh… — Contempt of Court | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:27166

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CONT No. 1278 of 2025

¶6

Smt. Savita Rajput W/o Mangal Singh Rajput Aged About 64 Years R/o A-18, Rajaswa Colony, Chantidih, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner.

¶8

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.07.03 12:32:05 +0530

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Shri Siddharth Komal Singh Pardeshi Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur District Rapur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Shri Ritu Raj Raghuvanshi, Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Shri R.P. Aditya, Joint Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶13

... Respondents.

¶14

(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Advocate.

¶16

For Respondents : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. AG.

¶17

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

02/07/2026

¶20

This Contempt Petition has been filed against the respondents alleging noncompliance of order dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No.5828/2024 (Smt. Savita Rajpur Vs. State of CG and others).

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in compliance with the order under contempt dated 20.03.2025, the entire retiral dues payable to the petitioner have been paid. He further submits that the petitioner has been paid Rs.14,54,080/- towards Leave Encashment on 03.03.2026, Rs. 20,00,000/- towards Gratuity and Rs.3,95,140/- for the difference of pension amount (10%) on 23.06.2026; in aggregate, Rs. 38,49,220/- has been paid to the petitioner.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the application (I.A. No. 01/2026) for the issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents/contemnors for purging the contempt petition, submits that the direction was made in the writ petition to pay the amount within 50 days, however, the aforesaid amounts have not been paid within 50 days i.e. from the date of the order till 20.03.2025. Furthermore, the said amount has been paid without interest. Hence, at this stage, the respondents may be directed to pay interest for the delayed period, i.e., after 50 days from the date of passing of the order under contempt. In support of his submission, he also places reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Das Vs. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust {(2024) 11 SCC 679} and prays to pass appropriate directions to the respondents.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed with the contempt petition.

¶25

Vide order under contempt dated 20.03.2025 this Court has passed the following order:-

¶26

" 16 . In view of the aforesaid binding judgments of the Supreme Court, the crystallized legal position as on day is that

¶27

¶28

once an employee ceased to be in the service, departmental enquiry lapses and disciplinary proceeding is not permissible unless there is a specific provision to that effect in the relevant applicable service rules. Hence, in view of above discussion the Departmental enquiry pursuance to chargesheet dated 19.10.2023 is hereby quashed.

¶29

As far as, the retiral dues are concerned which are pending to be paid to the petitioner, the respondent authorities are directed to release the same within a period of 50 days form the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

As a sequel, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove."

¶31

From the perusal of the aforesaid observation made by this Court, it is explicit that the respondent authorities were directed to pay the retiral dues to the petitioner within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the aforesaid order. As per Annexure-C/2, the copy of the aforesaid order was submitted by the applicant to the office of Respondent No.3 on 28.03.2025. As such, all the retiral dues payable to the petitioner ought to have been paid by 17th May, 2025. However, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, an order was passed by the Authority for the payment of Rs.14,54,080/- towards Leave Encashment on 03.03.2026, and the remaining amounts i.e., Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.3,95,140/- towards gratuity and pension were paid on 23.06.2026. Thus, the retiral dues were not paid to the petitioner within the stipulated time.

¶32

In the case of Amit Kumr Das (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring the judgment of Mazdoor Sangh Vss. Baranagore Jute Factory Plc {(2017) 5 SCC 506 and other similar judgments, observed that the explicit or selfevident directions must be enforced, and it remains the duty of the Court to

¶33

¶34

issue appropriate orders including restitutive measures at any stage of the proceedings to remedy, rectify, and undo the actions taken in violation of its orders. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the aforesaid judgments reads as under:-

¶35

15 . However, in Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) vs. Baranagore Jute Factory PLC., considering the aforestated precedent, a 2-Judge Bench of this Court noted that the three-Judge Bench had clarified therein that directions which are explicit in the judgment or ‘are plainly self-evident’ can be taken into account for the purpose of considering whether there is any disobedience or willful violation. The Bench further held that the Court has a duty to issue appropriate directions for remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of the Court order and in that regard, the Court may even take restitutive measures at any stage of the proceedings.

¶36

Significantly, the two Judge Bench had merely echoed the affirmation of the legal position by another two-Judge Bench of this Court in Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction. The principle that a contemnor ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt was reiterated therein. Reference was made by the Bench to Mohammad Idris vs. Rustam Jehangir Babuji, wherein it was held that undergoing punishment for contempt would not mean that the Court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of its orders."

¶37

In the present case, undisputedly, all the retiral dues were not paid to the petitioner within the stipulated period, rather, they were paid after a delay of about one year. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending; instead, the contempt petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Authorities to pay interest @ 6% per annum for

¶38

¶39

the delayed period of the aforesaid retiral dues after 50 days, i.e. from 17.05.2025 till the actual payment of the amount. The aforesaid amount

¶40

shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from today.

¶41

The contempt proceeding is dropped.

¶42

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this contempt petition is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶44

Ajay

Smt. Savita Rajput v. Shri Siddharth Komal Singh Pardeshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savita Rajput v. Shri Siddharth Komal Singh Pardeshi

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

Sachin Agarwal Vs Government of India

Savitri Vs Narendra Prasad

Hemant Kumar Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kamla Shukla Vs Hemant Shukla

Smt. Reema Yadu Vs Gautam Yadu

Sukhan Say Sidar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh