IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Restoration Application No. 1015/2008 Delay Condonation Application No.5615/08 In Contempt Petition No.139 of 2006 Jagdish Chandra Singh Bisht …Petitioner Versus Sri A.K. Garg … Respondent Sri Mohan Chandra Pande, Advocate for petitioner Sri Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for respondent Dated: September 17, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Sri Mohan Chandra Pande, Advocate for petitioner/applicant. Sri Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties on delay condonation application and perused the affidavit filed in support thereto. I find sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the restoration application. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the restoration application is hereby condoned. Also, heard learned counsel for parties on restoration application and perused the affidavit filed in support thereto. I find sufficient ground to recall the order dated 20.03.2008 passed by this Court. 2 Accordingly, restoration application is allowed. The order dated 20.03.2008 is hereby recalled. The contempt petition is restored to its original number. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that petitioner has now retired from service. It appears from the record that Bank in compliance of the order passed by this Court proceeded for promotion exercise and letter was sent to the petitioner in this regard which was received by the petitioner. The copy of acknowledgement has been annexed by the Bank along with counter affidavit as Annexure C-7. It further appears that petitioner did not apply for considering his candidature for promotion from the post of Officers Grade Scale-III (non-executive cadre) to Officers Grade Scale-IV (executive cadre), therefore, the Bank had left with no alternative to pass the order dated 7.10.2005, which is contained in Annexure C-8 to the counter affidavit. Perusal of the order dated 7.10.2005 shows that the Bank had complied with the directions issued by this Court by giving opportunity to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not opt to participate in Promotion exercise in question. The grounds taken by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit do not appear to be satisfactory and it is nowhere indicated that the petitioner participated in Promotion exercise made by the Bank. 3 In view of above, contempt petition is devoid of any force and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, contempt petition is dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP