Chattisgarh High Court
Sangita Yadav vs Union Of India on 28 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:19723
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 500 of 2026
1 - Sangita Yadav Wd/o Late Rohanlal Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o
Ward No. 22, Mouhari Bhatha, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.)
2 - Sonu Yadav S/o Late Rohanlal Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o
Ward No. 22, Mouhari Bhatha, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.)
3 - Mamta Yadav D/o Rohanal Yadav Aged About 25 Years W/o
Lakeshwar Yadav, R/o Village- Piprahi, Tahsil- Chhura, Distt.
Gariyaband (C.G.)
4 - Anusuiya Bai D/o Kuleshwar Yadav Aged About 50 Years W/o Pritam
Yadav, R/o Village- Khallari, Tahsil- Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund
(C.G.)
5 - Prembai D/o Kuleshwar Yadav Aged About 45 Years W/o Kumar
Yadav, R/o Village- Khallari, Tahsil- Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund
(C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Union Of India Through Divisional Manager, East Cost Railway,
Sambalpur, Distt. Sambalpur (Odisa)
Digitally signed ... Respondent(s)
by SUGUNA
DUBEY
SUGUNA Date:
DUBEY 2026.04.30
11:05:09
+0530
2
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate
For Respondent/UOI : Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSGI assisted by
Shri Neeraj Baghel, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Order on Board
28/04/2026
Heard.
2. Present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and
correctness of the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned First
Civil Judge, Class-I, Mahasamund in MJC No. S-04/2025 whereby the
application filed by the petitioners under Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners had instituted Succession Case No. S-15 of 2021 before the
learned First Civil Judge Class-I, Mahasamund seeking grant of
Succession Certificate on account of death of one Kuleshwar, who was
a Trackman in the Railway Department and has died in harness on
09.12.2010. It is submitted that in the said proceedings, the
respondents/Railway authorities contested the claim, however, the trial
court vide order dated 24.01.2023 declared the petitioners to be the
legal successors of the deceased Kuleshwar.
4. He further submits that upon enquiry, the Railway authorities had
informed the petitioners that a sum of Rs. 4,87,204/- was payable
3
towards the departmental dues of the deceased. However, despite
issuance of the succession certificate, the said amount was not paid in
full. Subsequently, the respondents took a stand that only an amount of
Rs. 2,81,035/- was payable and that the remaining amount was not due
which according to the petitioners is contrary to their earlier
communication.
5. On the aforesaid premise, the petitioners preferred an application
under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging willful
disobedience of the order dated 24.01.2023 and making false
submissions before the learned trial court as well as the non-payment of
the entire amount of Rs. 4,87,204/- as per the Succession Order dated
24.01.2023. The said application, however came to be dismissed by the
learned trial court holding that no case of contempt is prima facie
appears to be made out, which order is under challenge in the present
petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/UOI,
appears on advance copy and submits that the order dated 24.01.2023
passed in the succession proceedings is merely declaratory in nature,
declaring the petitioners as legal heirs of the deceased Kuleshwar and
does not contain any specific direction for payment of any particular
amount. It is further submitted that due to a bonafide calculation error,
an incorrect amount was initially communicated, which was
subsequently rectified and appropriate departmental action has also
been initiated against the erring officer of the respondent. Therefore the
learned trial court has rightly considered that no contempt is made out
4
against the authorities. He further submits that even otherwise, assailing
the order dated 09.01.2026 whereby the application seeking initiation of
contempt proceedings has been dismissed, the same is not
maintainable and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material annexed with the petition.
8. The present contempt proceedings arise out of the order dated
24.01.2023 passed by the learned First Civil Judge Class-I,
Mahasamund in Succession Case No. S-15/2021. A plain reading of the
said order reveals that the same merely declares the petitioners as legal
heirs of the deceased Kuleshwar and entitles them to receive the dues,
quantified at Rs. 4,87,204/-. However, there is no specific or mandatory
direction issued to the respondent/UOI to make payment of the said
amount to the petitioners rather, the order is declaratory in nature,
recognizing the petitioners as the legal heirs of the deceased. Although
it appears from the document Annexure P/2 that there was a calculation
error on the part of the respondent authorities it further transpires from
the impugned order that the respondents have tendered apology with
regard to such erroneous calculation of the departmental dues.
9. While considering the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ashok
Paper Kamgar Union And Ors. vs Dharam Godha And Ors. (2003)
11 SCC 1, the learned trial court has held that no case of contempt is
made out as there is no wilful violation of any order or direction passed
5
by any court and has consequently rejected the application.
10. In the present case,the material on record indicates that the
discrepancy in the amount arose on account of a calculation error for
which the respondents have tendered an explanation and initiated
departmental proceedings. Apparently, such circumstances do not
establish any willful disobedience of the court’s order and no contempt
proceedings can be initiated against the order passed in Succession
Case and the learned trial court has rightly rejected the same by the
impugned order.
11. After going through the entire documents annexed with the
present petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial
court has rightly concluded that no case of contempt is made out
against the respondent authorities. The order impugned does not
suffers from any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ
petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge