IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA COPC No. 285 of 2011 Date of decision: 15.10.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Kulwant Singh. .....Petitioner. Versus Purshotam Verma. .....Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). On 07.04.2011 the following order was passed by this Court in CMP No. 2541 of 2011(Annexure C-1), in CWP No. 7038 of 2010: “CMP No. 2541/2011. Replies within two weeks. In the meantime, till further orders, the petitioner shall continue working against the post in which he was working up till 31st March, 2011. List on 20th April, 2011.” 2. The present petition has been filed alleging contempt against the respondent in not complying with the aforesaid order dated 07.04.2011. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Indisputably, the petitioner had initially joined the employment of Market Committee, Solan (H.P.) as Helper on 17.07.2002 for a period of three months on contract. The contract 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... was thereafter renewed from time to time on yearly basis. Indisputably, the petitioner is still working with the aforesaid Market Committee. 5. It appears that at times the petitioner was also deputed to carry out the duties of Auction Recorder. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was engaged only as Helper and that too on contract basis. It being so, he has no vested right to claim continuance against the post of Auction Recorder. Furthermore, the latest contract also stipulates that the petitioner has been engaged only as Helper. 6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order dated 07.04.2011 would go to show that the direction was to allow “the petitioner to continue working against the post in which he was working up till 31st March, 2011”. It is also not disputed that on 31st March, 2011, the substantive post against which the petitioner was working was that of Helper only and not Auction Recorder. Admittedly, the petitioner is still working as Helper and he is getting wages as such regularly. In view of the above, I am satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case no contempt is made out against the respondent. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 15th October, 2011 (virender)