SHIVANI THUDGAR vs DR. M.P. MAHESHWAR — CONT/625/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010160692026

Filing Number

CONT/9306/2026

Filing Date

20-Apr-2026

Registration No

CONT/625/2026

Registration Date

30-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CONTEMPT OF COURT MATTERS ( 16 )

Sub-Category

OTHER CIVIL CONTEMPT MATTERS ( 1603 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHIVANI THUDGAR

    Adv. AJAY SHRIVASTAVA,SATYA KUMAR MANDLOI,SATYA KUMAR MANDLOI, ,G.P.MATHUR,VINOD KUMAR SHARMA,SATYA KUMAR MANDLOI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DR. M.P. MAHESHWAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem SahuView PDF

    Summary of CONT No. 625 of 2026 (Chhattisgarh High Court) Shivani Thudgar filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a prior promotion order dated 20.02.2026. She claimed that while promoted with seniority parity to her juniors, she was denied back pay for the period between her juniors' promotion and her own promotion. The court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that the prior order required only equal treatment and parity during verification of eligibility—not additional financial benefits—and found no grounds for contempt proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CONT/625/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CONT No. 625 of 2026 (Chhattisgarh High Court) Shivani Thudgar filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a prior promotion order dated 20.02.2026. She claimed that while promoted with seniority parity to her juniors, she was denied back pay for the period between her juniors' promotion and her own promotion. The court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that the prior order required only equal treatment and parity during verification of eligibility—not additional financial benefits—and found no grounds for contempt proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case