CLCON 112/2005 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Heard Sri K.S. Bora, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate for respondent No.6 and Sri M.C. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.7. By way of this contempt petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, the petitioner has prayed for summoning the respondents and to punish them for willful disobedience of the order dated 15-6-2004 passed by this Court in Civil W.P. No. 102 (S/B) of 2003, Rajvanshi Prasad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others. The operative portion of the impugned judgment passed by this Court reads as follows:- “Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Writ of certiorari is issued. The order dated 17th September, 2002 issued by respondent No.3, i.e. District Asstt. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Udham Singh Nagar is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in service as the age of superannuation is 60 years and extend all the benefits to the petitioner treating him as in service.” The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and in the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner was admittedly working in Cooperative Societies and his service conditions are regulated through Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttarakhand. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the judgment passed by this Court the petitioner should have been treated as a government servant. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be devoid of any force, firstly that there is no dispute that the petitioner was a employee of Cooperative Societies and his service conditions are regulated through Registrar, Cooperative Societies, State of Uttarakhand, secondly the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2004, and lastly there is no direction passed by this court in the impugned judgment that the petitioner should be treated as a government servant. Accordingly, I do not find any justification to continue these contempt proceedings against the respondents. The contempt petition is dismissed. The notices issued against the respondents are hereby discharged. Dated: 08-04-2009 ( B.C. K., J. ) ISB