IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Contempt Petition No. 236 of 2006 Ram Kumar Sharma … Petitioner. Versus Raj Kumar Singh and others …. Respondents. Sri Alok Verma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the respondents. Dated: 26-3-2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition, under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be summoned and punished for willful disobedience of the order dated 19-10-2005, passed by this Court in W.P. No. 204(S/S) of 2001, Ram Kumar Sharma V. G.M.V.N. Ltd. and others. The impugned judgment and order dated 19-10-2005 has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the contempt petition and perusal of the aforesaid judgment and order shows that the order by which the services of the petitioner were removed, was quashed. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit by respondent No.4 dated 21-3-2009, it has been stated that the petitioner has been reinstated in service on 31-10- 2005. However, the Corporation has preferred special appeal before this court against the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge dated 19-10-2005, but the respondents have taken the plea in the counter affidavit that in compliance of the order passed by this court, they have reinstated the petitioner in service. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that even after the reinstatement of the service, the petitioner has not been paid back wages. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as far as the payment of back wages is concerned, the plea has been taken by the Corporation by way of special appeal that the petitioner is not entitled for the same. The impugned order dated 19-10-2005 nowhere indicates that the petitioner should be paid back wages. The impugned judgment and order dated 19-10-2005 indicates only the quashing of the removal order of the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, I think that there is no justification in continuing the contempt proceedings against the respondents. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The notices, if any, issued against the respondents shall stand discharged. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB