Judgment · High Court

(a) Smt. Shanti Tiwari, W/o Dr. Chandrika Prasad Tiwari, aged about 70 years. (b) Prakash Tiwari, S/o Dr. Chandrika Prasad Tiwari, aged about 43 years. (a) & (b) are residents of Loharsi village (Sona), Bilaspur, Tehsil & District Bilaspur (CG). Dr. Dhanya Kumar Jain, S/o Late Shri Ram Holji Jain aged about 76 years, Retired Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, R/o Main Road, Gopalpur, Korba, Tehsil 85 District Korba (CG). Dr. Uttam Chand Nayak, S/o Late Shri Tal Chand, years, Retired Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, R/o Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (CG). 79 Versus RESPONDENT/ CONTEMNOR Shri Ajay Singh, Principal Secretary, Department Health & Family Welfare, •(•^)-0) pqjo^ 'ipBqBSO^ '{-as^qj (JB§U^ •d'^ 'ON ^6Z ^oid jo 8^U3pIS9J 3JB HV •JQ •JQ 'SJBS^ 9Teq 'SJBS^ a^q y-i7 ^noq^ p^§B B^dno o/s 'B^dno BuqsT^urey Jemn^ qpoqng (Q-i) st> ^.noqB p9§B '^dno o/s jemn^ <B-^dnr) BuqsTj?[urey <sjsA -bs ^noqp p9§B Buqsij^urey -JQ ^aq o/s 'B^dnr) jBmn^ pomA (9-l) 'sjeaA* ^ /, ^noqa p3§B 'B^dno ^uqsusiurey •JQ a-iaq O/M ^ctno yje^nQ ?[euep ^uis (v-l) aoiiis) B^dno ^uqsij^uiey 'JQ -: jiaq ]"e§9l qgnojqj, (p3?p 'o^j JSUOT^I^QJ T ponrej^ (3-1) 'B^dnQ r^-^ .t.<3 •^ ^^ c-7:ot r^ ^ft ^- ^ ^lf^ ^•y^. l^t"" ^"J'~.,^ ^. ;rf ^ ^ ^' ^e^ ^ ^ ^'A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contempt Case fCivin No.

138/2013 PETITIONERS RESPONDENT/ CONTEMNOR PetitionerNo.1 Dr. Ramkrishna Gupta (through his legal heirs) and others Versus ShriAjaySingh Shri V.K. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioners. Shri P.S. Koshy and Shri Vaibhav Shukla, counsel respondent/contemnor. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. ORAL ORDER (23.08.2013) Shri Ajay Singh, Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, State of Chhattisgarh is present. (2) Petitioners had preferred W.P. No. 1605/2005 seeking payment of arrears to the writ petitioners till retirement togethsr with dues pending for payment in the nature of increment from 1988 till retirement and other benefits. The said Writ Petition No.1605/2005 was decided by this court by order Annexure R-1 dated 7/12/2009 inter-alia directing that since petitioner No.4 has been gi-anted notional pay revision on the basis of order of absorption dated 29/10/2001 (Annexure P-2) whereby he was absorbed as on 15/04/1988 on the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari CIass-11 (Gazetted) the other petitioners are atso entitled for the same relief, therefore if the writ petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 have not been granted the payment of arrears on the basis of notional pay as granted to the petitioner No.4 by order dated 18/08/2003 the State authorities shall consider their case.

(3) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that writ petitioner ^No.4 Uttam Chand Nayak was granted notional pay revision vide ^s?^.. / fi>. ¥"'i s y^.v i ^'^^'s^'^ document available at page 14 ofthe paper book, therefore the petitioners are entitled for the same treatment. He would submit that by hot giving similar treatment contemnor committed willful default disobedience of the order passed by this court. (4) Learned counsel for the contemnor would submit that other writ petitioners were also granted notional pay fixation on the basis of order of absorption from 15/04/1988 till their retirement, therefore the contemnor has not disobeyed the order passed by this court. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any such order by which arrears has been paid to petitioner No.4 Uttam Chand Nayak. Para 9 of the order passed by the writ court clearly mentions that "notional in the order dated 18/08/2003 petitioner No.4 has been granted pay revision", however in the operative part it was also directed that the State authorities shall consider the case of other petitioners, if not granted payment of arrears on the basis of notional pay as granted to Uttam Chand Nayak, however since it is the case of the petitioners themsetves that Uttam Chand Nayak was never granted arrears of pay, when his pay scale was notionally fixed in accordance with the order of absorption, this court is not convinced with the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that contemnor has flouted the order passed by this court.