Chhattisgarh High Court
CONT/384/2026 of SHOEB QAZI Vs HIMSHIKHAR GUPTA on 10 September 2026
2026:CGHC:39854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 384 of 2026 1 - Shoeb Qazi S/o Late Gayas Ahmed Qazi Aged About 41 Years R/o Phase- 01, House No. 07, Street No. 04, Near T. V. Tower, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Himshikhar Gupta
CGHC010091102026
2026:CGHC:39854
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CONT No. 384 of 2026
1 - Shoeb Qazi S/o Late Gayas Ahmed Qazi Aged About 41 Years R/o Phase- 01, House No. 07, Street No. 04, Near T. V. Tower, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
Versus
1 - Himshikhar Gupta Secretary-Cum-Labor Commissioner, Labor Commissioner Office, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pushpendra Kumar Meena Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner
:
Mr. Anup Majumdar, Sr. Advocate along with Mr.
Saket Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 :
Mr. Siddhant Kumar Das, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2 :
Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate
SB:
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
11/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. 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 29.01.2026 passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 3174/2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 29.01.2026 subject matter of contempt, petitioner had immediately submitted SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY
a representation before the Respondent No. 1 and have brought to the notice of the order passed by this Court. However, they have not taken any decision of opening seal cover within the time specified therein, but have opened the sealed cover in the month of August, 2026 which is after about 04 months from the time fixed. He contended that after opening of the sealed cover, petitioner has been granted the benefit of promotion vide order dated 31.08.2026 with effect from passing of the order. He submits that as the Respondent No. 1 has not complied with the order as directed, therefore, direction be issued to the Respondent No. 1 to issue an order of promotion of the petitioner from the date as fixed by this Court.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 would submit that the Respondent No. 1 had submitted an affidavit and have tendered unconditional apology, explaining the delay caused in opening the seal cover. He submits that now, the seal cover is opened and the petitioner has already beem promoted and therefore, the order of this Court dated 29.01.2026 has been purged by the Respondent No. 1.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents placed on record.
5. It is not in dispute that seal cover is open after filing of this contempt petition, seal cover has been opened and petitioner has been promoted vide order dated 31.08.2026. If for any reason, petitioner is aggrieved with the date from which, the petitioner is promoted, petitioner can make a prayer in an appropriate proceeding.
6. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the Respondent No. 1 has complied with the order and the direction issued by this Court in the order dated 29.01.2026 passed in WP (S) No. 3174/2022 and therefore, I do not find any good ground to continue with the contempt petition.
7. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents is dropped. Notices issued to the respondents stands discharged.
8. Contempt petition is closed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey