IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHNAD AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 86 of 2005 Smt. Anita Sharma, … Petitioner Vs Sri Anil Sharma … Respondent Sri C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Shah, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act has been filed by the petitioner for summoning the respondents and punishing them for willfully disobedience and flouting the order dated 23.03.2004 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 104 of 2003 (S/S), Smt. Anita Sharma Vs State of Uttaranchal & others. 2. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 23.03.2004 passed following order and the relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below:- “The writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 19.9.2002 and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for giving her employment under Dying in Harness Rules. No order as to costs.” 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent – C.M.O., Haridwar is respondent No. 2 in this case has categorically stated in paragraph No. 3 B of the affidavit that in pursuance of the order dated 23.03.2004 passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered by C.M.O., Haridwar and it was rejected vide order dated 12.04.2005. The deponent has also been stated that the dead 2 body of the husband of the petitioner was not found as yet, therefore, here case is not covered under the Dying in Harness Rules. The deponent has further stated in paragraph 3C of the affidavit that the matter was also referred to the Directorate, Medical Health & Family Welfare Department and the Directorate in turn referred the same to the State Government vide order dated 11 July, 2005. The State Government after considering the matter also rejected the case of the petitioner. 4. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the order passed by this Court by which direction was issued that the respondents are to consider the case of the petitioner for giving her appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules has been complied with. 5. I therefore, do not find any reason or justification to continue the proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act against the respondents. 6. accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. 7. The notices issued against the respondents are hereby discharged. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 24.03.2009 ASWAL