Jayantrao Gaikwad, Vs Manish Mishra

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

2026:CGHC:22133

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CONT No. 954 of 2021

¶6

Jayantrao Gaikwad, S/o Shri Rajeshwar Rao Gaikwad, Aged About 64 Years Residence Of Marathapara Dhamtari Road District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Petitioner)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Manish Mishra, The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Dhamtari District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Anil Rai, Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Second Floor, Old Police Head Quarter Premises Raipur Chhattisgarh (Proposed Contemnors)

¶11

3 - S.K. Sundrani Joint Director, Urban Administration And Development Department, Indravati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28-08-2023)

¶12

4 - Vinay Kumar Poyam Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr. Prakash Tiwari with Mr. V. Jayant Kumar, Advocates

¶15

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.05.14 10:22:59 +0530

¶16

2 / 5

¶17

For Resp. No.1 :Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate along with Mr. Nirala Gupta, Advocate For Resp. No.2 :Mr. Vibhore Goverdhan, Advocate For Resp. No.3 & 4 :Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶18

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board

¶19

11/05/2026

¶20

Pursuant to direction issued by this Court,

¶21

respondents/contemnor No. 1, 3 & 4 are present before this Court in person.

¶22

This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 24.06.2021 passed in WPS No.2865 of 2021.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was specific direction in the order, subject matter of contempt, to consider and take decision on the representation to be submitted by petitioner within specified time frame keeping in view the circular issued by State Govt. from time to time and orders of absorption passed with respect to similarly placed employees. Order passed by this Court was not complied with and no decision has been taken. After long time of filing of contempt petition, respondent No.4 has taken a decision on representation rejecting the claim of petitioner on erroneous consideration without considering the circular issued by the State Govt. and therefore there is willful disobedience of the order by respondent No.4. He also referred to circular dated 14.07.2016 issued by the Joint Director Town Administration and Development Department Raipur and submitted that in the said circular addressed to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Beergaon and Dhamtari it is specifically

¶24

3 / 5

¶25

mentioned that if posts are not available for absorption then supernumerary posts are to be created and if posts are available then to absorb the employees who have been posted on deputation after abolition of State Road Transport Corporation. Petitioner was initially employed with Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC) and after formation of Sate of Chhattisgarh, State of Chhattisgarh has taken a decision to abolish the Transport Corporation and accordingly employees posted within the territorial jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh, employees of Transport corporation were directed to work under Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC) and thereafter the petitioner has been sent on deputation with Municipal Corporation Dhamtari.

¶26

Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that claim of petitioner for regularization/absorption was earlier rejected vide order dated 17.08.2015. The said order was not put to challenge before any authority or before the Court. He contended that in the meantime, petitioner after attaining age of superannuation, retired from service on 30.09.2017. He submits that writ petition is filed only in the year 2021 after retirement from service and petitioner was even otherwise was not entitled for absorption after retirement . He contended that in compliance with order passed in writ petition and direction issued, claim of petitioner/representation submitted by petitioner was considered and it was rejected vide order dated 15.12.2023. From the aforementioned facts of case, it is discernible that respondents No.3 & 4 have complied with the direction issued by this Court.

¶27

4 / 5

¶28

Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.1 made similar submissions as made by learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4.

¶29

Mr. Vibhore Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 also supports the contention of learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

¶31

Rejection of claim of absorption of petitioner in the year 2015 is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. He also not disputed submission of learned counsel for respective respondents that before filing of writ petition bearing WPS No.2865 of 2021 petitioner stood retired from service w.e.f. 30^th September 2017. Writ petition was filed only in the year 2021 after retirement upon attaining age of superannuation. Respondents have considered the representation submitted by petitioner and have rejected the same for the reason assigned therein.

¶32

In the aforementioned facts of case where the petitioner has filed writ petition after about 4 years from the date of his retirement from service for his absorption in permanent cadre and further that respondent No.4 vide letter dated 15.12.2023 has rejected the claim of petitioner assigning the reason which was not challenged and the representation of petitioner is decided, I am satisfied that there is substantial compliance of the order passed passed by this Court in writ

¶33

5 / 5

¶34

petition. If petitioner is aggrieved in any manner by the decision taken by respondent No.4, he will be at liberty to take recourse to law.

¶35