Chattisgarh High Court
Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey vs Shri Avinash Champavat on 12 September, 2023
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
Page No.1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CONT No. 200 of 2019
• Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey S/o Late Shri Sudhakarji Dubey Aged
About 71 Years Retired As Chief Engineer, Department Of Water
Resources, R/o A.G. 101, Sumangal Apartment, Phase -I, Behind
Hotel Ratan, Link Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Avinash Champavat Secretary, Department Of Water Resources,
Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar,
Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Shri Shiv Shekhar Shukla Principal Secretary, Department Of Water
Resources, Government Of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal Madhya
Pradesh. (Contemners), District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
---- Respondents
____________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Saleem Kazi, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Govt. Advocate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 12/09/2023
1. This contempt petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 3.1.2017 passed in WPS No.797/2005.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court while considering the writ petition raising grievance against the non- promotion of the petitioner since the date when juniors to the petitioner were promoted have categorically made observation that the adverse Page No.2 entries made in the service records from 19.7.1981 upto 31.3.1986 were expunged and, further directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion by review DPC. The review DPC was constituted and case of the petitioner was considered but erroneously they have again take note of the adverse entries which was made earlier and subsequently expunged and observed that the petitioner was not fit for promotion on the post of Executive Engineer and therefore there is willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in not obeying the direction issued by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for respondent submits that apart from the observation made in the order a direction which is issued to the respondents therein is for considering the candidature of the petitioner for promotion by the review DPC after obtaining the records from the State of Madhya Pradesh.
4. Learned State counsel Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Govt. Advocate, who was directed to keep the review DPC record present before this Court submits that from the proceeding of review DPC, it is appearing that several attempts have been made for seeking the old record from the State of Madhya Pradesh.. however, the entire record were not sent and only some portion of the record were forwarded and thereafter the review DPC considered the claim of promotion of petitioner based on the material available.
5. After analyzing the entire material available, review DPC has held that the petitioner was not found fit for promotion and accordingly the order was passed on 4.5.2019 and the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 3.1.2017 has been complied with in its word and spirit and therefore no contempt would be made out.
Page No.3
6. Mr. Saleem Kazi submits that as respondents have constituted the review DPC, candidature of the petitioner was considered for promotion the post of Executive Engineer, however, he was not found to fit for promotion and therefore, the direction issued by this Court has been complied with in its words and spirit and no contempt would be made out.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the record.
8. Perusal of para-10 of the order under contempt would show that this Court has made observation "therefore, in these circumstances in case review DPC upon consideration of petitioner records considered him suitable for promotion from the date of his juniors were promoted in the year 1998, the petitioner would only be entitled the consequential promotion as from the date any of juniors were promoted as Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer.
9. From the aforementioned operative portion of the order it is appearing that the Court has directed for consideration of the case of petitioner by the review DPC and the promotion of the petitioner has been left to the subject matter of the outcome of the review DPC. The review DPC has already been held on 10.4.2019 wherein the petitioner was found not fit for promotion and accordingly the orders in this regard was also issued on 4.5.2019.
10. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I am of the view that the respondents have complied with the order under contempt. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding initiated against the respondent is dropped. Notice is discharged. Contempt petition is closed. However, petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the order of Page No.4 promotion based on the proceeding of the review DPC before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
11. Records of the review DPC is returned back to the counsel for State.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Nisha