Smt. Rita Singh Vs Shri Amit Kataria — Contempt of Court | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

Smt. Rita Singh Vs Shri Amit Kataria — Contempt of Court | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents dropped; notices issued to the respondents discharged; contempt petition closed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate proceeding if any exigency arises in future.

Issue for consideration

Whether the contempt proceedings initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution r/w Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non-payment of 100% family pension pursuant to the order dated 22.11.2024 in WP(S) No. 1512/2021 should be continued or dropped, in view of the steps taken by the respondents towards disbursal.

Court's answer

The respondents had already taken the appropriate steps for disbursing the petitioner's 100% family pension and the disbursement stood at the stage of computation/calculation of the family pension.

Ratio / Principle

On these facts, the Court found no good ground to continue the contempt petition any further and accordingly dropped the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents.

Key takeaways

The notices issued to the respondents stand discharged.ratio¶9
The contempt petition is closed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate proceeding if any exigency arises in future.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt proceedings dropped - non-compliance of order dated 22.11.2024 in WP(S) No. 1512/2021 (100% family pension): The petitioner (widow pensioner) moved the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Parth Prateem Sahu, J.), 03/03/2026, CONT No. 588 of 2025, under Article 215 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging non-payment of 100% family pension pursuant to the order dated 22.11.2024 in WP(S) No. 1512/2021. Counsel for Respondents No. 2 & 3 pointed to the Senior Treasury Officer's letter dated 16.02.2026 to the Bank for payment of 100% pension and sanction of dearness allowance; counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 4 stated the bank had initiated pension revision with revised pension to be disbursed within 10 days, though petitioner's counsel noted the amount had not yet been deposited. Holding that the respondents had already taken appropriate steps and disbursement stood at the computation/calculation stage, the Court found no good ground to continue the petition, dropped the contempt proceedings, discharged the notices, and closed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings if any exigency arises in future.

1

2026:CGHC:11089

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CONT No. 588 of 2025

1 - Smt. Rita Singh Wd/o Late Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh Aged About 70 Years R/o- Aadarsh Nagar, Sirgitti, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Petitioner

Versus

1 - Shri Amit Kataria The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Shri Mahadev Kavare Directorate Of Treasury Accounts And Pension, Raipur, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Shri R.K. Patel The Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension, Division- Bilaspur, 1st Floor, Naveen Composite Building Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)

4 - Shri Anil Kumar Jagat The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.)

... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 4 : Mr. Amiya Bhushan, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER ON BOARD

03/03/2026

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 215 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging non-compliance of the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by this Court

2

in WP(S) No. 1512/2021.

Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 2 & 3 would submit that letter is written by the Senior Treasury Officer to the Bank for payment of 100% pension and the sanction the dearness allowance to the petitioner vide letter dated 16.02.2026.

Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 & 4 would submit that the bank has also taken initiatives for revising the pension of the petitioner and the revised pension will be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of 10 days.

Both the counsels have placed copy of the letters and the copy of the e-mail for perusal of this Court in support of their contentions. Copy of the letters and the e-mail is also handed over to the counsel for petitioner during the course of hearing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till now, the amount has not been deposited.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.

The contempt petition is filed only on the ground that the petitioner is not being paid 100% family pension pursuant to the order dated 22.11.2024 passed in WP (S) No. 1512/2021. The submission of counsel for respective respondents based on the documents placed before this Court is that the proceedings have been initiated, letters have been forwarded to the bank and the bank is in the process of revision of pension of the petitioner.

In the aforementioned facts of the case, when respondents have already taken the appropriate steps for disbursing the amount of 100% family pension of the petitioner and is at the stage of the computation/calculation of the family pension, I do not find any good ground to continue this contempt petition any further. Accordingly, contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents is dropped .

Notices issued to the respondents stands discharged. Contempt petition is

3

closed reserving liberty with the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding if any exigency arises in future.

Digitally
SHUBHAM signed by
DEY SHUBHAM
DEY

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Dey