IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Contempt No. 130 of 2008 Godhan Singh Bisht, S/O Shri Kharak Singh Bisht, R/O Kanjabag Road, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. …… Petitioner. Versus Mr. Harish Chandra Joshi, Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, R/O Basant Vihar B-2, Dehradun. … Respondent. Sri S.C.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. Date July 25, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri S.C.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and perused the record. This contempt petition has been moved for punishing the contemnor for his gross and willful disobedience of the Court’s order dated 5-09-2002 as well as the order dated 15-1-2007 passed by the Apex Court. By order dated 15-1-2007, the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Uttaranchal against the order dated 5- 9-2002 has been dismissed on the ground of delay. The Writ Petition No. 3264 (S/S) of 2001 Sri Godhan Singh Bisht and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and two others was disposed of vide order dated 5-9-2002 in terms of the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12879 of 2001 Uma Shanker Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. The said writ petition was decided by the Division Bech of the Allahabad High Court vide order dated 5-4-2002. The order was passed to the following effect:- “Accordingly, the petitions succeed and are allowed in part. The impugned order 23.3.2001 is quashed. The matter is 2 remitted to the State Government to reconsider the feasibility of protection of pay and status of the petitioners after taking into reckoning al the relevant factors stated in this judgment and if necessary to modify its order dated 24.3.2001 accordingly.” A perusal of the record shows that the State Government by Office Memorandum dated 9th April, 2008 has decided the representation of the petitioner dated 22-10-2007. It has been mentioned in the order that that the appointment was given to the petitioner on his present post on the request made by him. It is also mentioned in the order that full benefits of protection of pay is being provided to the petitioner. It has also been mentioned that if any decision is taken by the erstwhile State of U.P. in respect of equity/parity of post, the case of petitioner shall also be considered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no prima facie case of contempt is made out in favour of the applicant. The contempt petition is dismissed in limine. However, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order dated 9-4- 2008, he may assail the order before the appropriate forum. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 3 4 5