IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 260 of 2004 1. Bhagat Singh S/o of Fate Singh R/o Village – Dogarhi Post Office – Tangsa District – Chamoli 2. Kan Singh S/o Bachan Singh R/o Village – Khainuri Post Office – Bhimtala District – Chamoli 3. Surender Singh S/o Shri Dharm Singh R/o Village – Sinder Vani Post Office – Shanti Sadan District – Chamoli 4. Govind Singh S/o Doma Singh R/o Village – Talla Negwarh Post Office – Gopeshwar District – Chamoli 5. Narender Singh S/o Chandra Singh R/o Village – Paduli Post Office – Gopeshwar District – Chamoli 6. Sabar Singh S/o Late Jagat Singh R/o Village – Sem Dungra Post Oficer – Palethi District – Chamoli … Petitioners Versus 1. Shri Kripal Singh Chief Engineer Level – 1 Public Works Department, Garhwal Circle District – Chamoli 2. I.S. Jangpangi Prantiya Khand Public Works Department, Gopeshwar District – Chamoli … Respondents Shri Pankaj Purhohit, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. The present contempt petition has been filed with a prayer that the contemnors had not complied with the order passed by this court on 22.06.2004 in writ petition No. 247 (S/S) of 2003 Bhagat Singh & others Vs. State of Uttaranchal. This court has directed vide order dated 22.06.2004 that the operation of the order dated 20.03.2003 passed by respondent No. 3 shall remain stayed. The petitioners shall be permitted to work and shall be paid minimum of pay scale of Beldars. Application was disposed of accordingly. The petitioner filed an application that the order dated 22.06.2004 has not bee complied with by the contemnors. 2. Pursuant to the said application notices were sent to the respondents/contemnors to file their response. The contemnors had alleged in his counter affidavit at para No. 3 that the said order was received by the office on 01.07.2004 and the petitioners were allowed accordingly to work immediately from 6.11.2004 as Beldars on daily wages. The letter had already been sent to the petitioners on 06.11.2004. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners had also stated that the petitioners had been allowed to work w.e.f. 06.11.04. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the order has been complied with. 5. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. 6. The notices issued against the respondents stand discharged. (J.C.S. RAWAT, J.) 28th October, 2005 Shiv