IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Civil Contempt Petition No. 160/2007 A.K. Dhar .. Petitioner. Versus Dr. L.B. Prasad and others … Respondents. Sri V.K. Kaparwan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4. Sri N.P. Shah, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. Dated: 23-3-2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition, under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, the petitioner has prayed for issuing notices to the respondents and punishing them for willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 28-2-2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 792/2001(S/B), A.K. Dhar Versus State of U.P. and others. The relevant portion of the judgment and order dated 28-2-2006, passed by the Division Bench of this Court reads as under:- “the petition is allowed. Writ of Certiorari is issued to quash the impugned order dated 01- 05-2002. All the dues to the petitioner shall be cleared in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get interest on the dues.” Counter affidavit has been filed by Sri L.B. Prasad (respondent No.1). The averment made in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the counter affidavit is reproduced as follows:- “3. That in compliance of the judgment dated 28-2-2006, the amount of Rs. 1,04,919-00 which was withheld by the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur, was paid to the petitioner vide Treasury Cheque No. 299138 dated 29-05-2006 and further his T.A. Bills amounting to Rs. 3,576-00 was also paid to him vide Treasury Cheque No. 292114 dated 7-9- 2006. Photocopy of the letter of the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur dated 08-12-2006, is annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 to this counter affidavit. 4. That the petitioner has stated in para 8 of the contempt petition, that his commutation amount is Rs. 1,33,061-00 whereas the correct amount is Rs. 1,33,569-00 which has already been paid to him vide Treasury Cheque No. 912703 dated 15-6-2002. Thus statement of the petitioner is incorrect. 5. That the petitioner has demanded refund of Rs. 1900-00 deducted every month from his full pension, since the commutation amount was not paid to him. It is submitted that Rs. 1,33,569-00 of the commuted pension was paid to him as stated in the preceding paragraph. As per the G.O. No. Sa-3-184/X-7040-78 dated 18th May, 1983, pension is paid at the reduced rate from the date of payment of the commuted amount or three months after the payment order, which ever is earlier. Photocopy of the GO dated 18th May 1983 is annexed as Annexure No. CA-2, to this counter affidavit”. The other respondents have also filed their counter affidavit and they have given the same version. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the order passed by this Court dated 28-02-2006, has been complied with, I, therefore, do not find any justification to continue the contempt proceedings against the respondents any more. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. The notices issued against the respondents are hereby discharged. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB