IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 162 of 2008 Prem Singh ….Petitioner Versus Lt. Col. Gurmit Singh …Respondent Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Central Govt. Counsel for respondent Dated: 07-01-2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this contempt petition under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act the petitioner has prayed for summoning the respondent for willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 23rd June, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 191 (S/S) of 2004 (Prem Singh versus Union of India and others) as well as order dated 24.04.2008 passed in Special Appeal No. 5 of 2006 (Union of India versus Prem Singh). Heard Sri Raman Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Joshi, learned Central Govt. Counsel for respondent and perused the record. The record reveals that Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 23rd June, 2005 issued the writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider, decide and then grant disability pension to the petitioner as is admissible to him in accordance with the law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before the concerned authority. The aforesaid order dated 23rd June, 2005 was challenged by Union of India by way of Special Appeal and Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.04.2008 has passed the following order: “We find ourselves in complete agreement with the aforesaid approach of the learned Single Judge and while dismissing this appeal and reiterating the aforesaid direction of the learned Single Judge, command and direct the appellant to reconsider and decide afresh the case of the respondent with respect to the grant of disability pension by taking into account the history of the case, its record and by applying all relevant aspects. This exercise shall be completed in a period of three months from today. The appellant shall pass a detailed, speaking and reasoned order because we noticed that in para 3 of the Communication dated 19th December, 1996 (supra), which we have extracted above, the reasoning given was cryptic as well as not based upon the record or the particulars of the case. The appellant shall communicate its decision to the respondent within the aforesaid period of three months. It goes without saying that if based upon fresh reconsideration the appellant decides to grant disability pension, the consequences shall follow. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.” The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court shows that authority i.e. respondent shall have to reconsider and decide afresh the case of the petitioner with respect to the grant of disability pension by taking into account the history of the case, its record and by applying all relevant aspects. The order further reveals that Division Bench of this Court has also observed that “it goes without saying that if based upon fresh reconsideration the appellant decides to grant disability pension, the consequences shall follow.” In view of the order dated 24.04.2008 passed by Division Bench of this Court the matter was reconsidered by the competent authority and the respondent has filed Annexure-CA-2 to the counter affidavit, which indicates that the case of the petitioner was reconsidered by the competent authority in the light of existing policy/regulations and instructions on the subject and the competent authority after the detailed discussion and perusal of the record did not find the petitioner entitled for the grant of disability pension due to non-fulfillment of basic condition and under the provision of Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961. This order was passed by the competent authority on 3rd October, 2008. The annexure filed as Annexure-CA- 2 to the counter affidavit clearly indicates that matter was reconsidered and thereafter the case of the petitioner was rejected. I am of the view that respondent has thus complied with the order passed by this court and accordingly has not committed any contempt of the Court. Accordingly, contempt petition is dismissed. Notice issued against the respondent is hereby discharged. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP