IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Appeal No.2 of 2010 Sudeep Singh and another …Appellants Versus Rajkamal .…Respondent Sri Ajit Pudussery Advocate with Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellants. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. Sri Ajit Pudussery, Advocate with Sri T.A. Khan, Advocate present for the appellants. Heard. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 16.08.2010, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, in Civil Contempt Petition No.72 of 2010 whereby the said Court has directed the appellant to comply with order dated 30.12.2009 passed in writ petition No.23 (S/S) of 2005 and it is further observed that in default of compliance, the appellant shall appear on 06.09.2010 so that Court may frame the charge. Admittedly, writ petition No.23 (S/S) of 2005 filed by respondent Rajkamal, was decided on 30.12.2009 on merits, after hearing learned counsel for the parties. By the said order, learned Single Judge issued a mandamus directing the respondents (in writ petition) to give appointment to the writ petitioner on compassionate grounds, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified 2 copy of the said order. It appears that Special Appeal No.59 of 2010 was filed by the Food Corporation of India challenging the order dated 30.12.2009. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the said Special Appeal was admitted but no stay order was granted by the Division Bench of this Court. Copy of order dated 27.07.2010 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the Special Appeal No.59 of 2010 shows that prayer for interim stay has been refused by the Appellate Court. In the above circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 16.08.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Contempt Petition No.72 of 2010, as without there being stay order, the appellants were bound to comply the directions issued by the Writ Court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since there is no vacancy, and appeal is also pending, it is difficult for the appellant to comply the order at this stage. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, and in the above facts and circumstances of the case, since there is no illegality in the order, this appeal is dismissed summarily with the observation that appellants are allowed to comply the order dated 30.12.2009 by 31.12.2010, whereafter learned Single Judge may proceed further with Civil Contempt Petition No.72 of 2010 subject to the decision of Special Appeal No.59 of 2010. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) JKJ 25.08.2010