IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 390 of 2006 Prem Singh Bora S/o Late Sri Ganga Singh Bora, R/o Tulsi Nagar, Polyshaeet, Kathgodam, District- Nainital. ….Petitioner Vs Sri Sanjay Chopra, Secretary (Geology and Mining), Directorate of Industries, Uttaranchal, Dehradun and others. ..Respondents Sri Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondents. Dated: - 15-4-2008 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard. By means of this contempt petition, the petitioner has prayed to punish the respondents for flouting the order dated 21-12-2005 passed in Writ petition No. 1933 of 2005 (S/S), Prem Singh Bora Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others. On 21-12-2005 an interim order was passed by the Court of which non compliance has been alleged. The order is quoted below:- “Heard Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harendra Belwal, standing counsel for the respondents. Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. List thereafter. A perusal of the appointment order dated 19-11-2005 shows that the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned order dated 12-12-2005, he is not being permitted to work. In case the petitioner is already working in pursuance of the order dated 19th November 2005, he shall be permitted to continue till the next date of listing.” By the order dated 21-12-2005, the Court directed that in case, the petitioner is already working in pursuance of 2 the order dated 19-11-2005, he shall be permitted to continue till the next date of listing. I have perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 in which it was specifically stated that since the petitioner’s father, in the absence of final allocation to the State of Uttarakhand, was a member of the concerned Cadre of the State of Uttar Pradesh, grant of appointment to his dependent is not a liability of the State of Uttarakhand. Learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondent has stated in paragraphs 9 and 10 to the Counter affidavit, the petitioner was not working on the date when the interim order was passed in writ petition No. 1933 of 2005 (S/S), Prem Singh Bora Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others. In the rejoinder affidavit, paragraph reply was given by the petitioner. In paragraph Nos. 9 and 10, there is specific averment that the petitioner was working on the date when the interim order was passed by this Court. The reference has been given that the petitioner was working with the respondents at the time when the appointment order was kept in abeyance. The appointment order was cancelled on 1-2-2007, which has been assailed by the petitioner by way of filing the amendment application in the writ petition. According to the petitioner that application is pending and the court till today has not granted any interim order against the termination order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has also filed the order passed by the Additional Director that the petitioner had worked from 30- 11-2005 to 12-12-2005. The petitioner has stated in paragraph No. 10 of the affidavit, which was filed in this contempt petition that inspite of the Court’s order dated 21-12-2005, the respondents are willfully disobeying the Court’s order and the 3 respondents have not provided any work to the petitioner in the office and are also not paying the salary. In the Supplementary affidavit, it was stated that at the time of passing the impugned order, he was working in the office of respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being permitted to work and this fact is also mentioned in the interim order passed by this Court. In the interim order passed by the Court, it is mentioned that in case the petitioner is already working in pursuance of the order dated 19-11-2005, he shall be permitted to continue till the next date of listing. In view of the evasive reply in paragraphs No. 9 and 10 of the rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit, it cannot be said that at the time of filing of the contempt petition the petitioner was working with the respondents at the time when the interim order was passed. In view of above fact, I am of the view that the respondents have not flouted the order passed by this Court. The termination order as well as the other grievance of the petitioner, which have been raised in the petition, he may raise in the writ petition before the writ court. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notices are hereby discharged. All applications stands disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma,J) M.K. 4