IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CLCON No. 164 of 2010 Ashok Kumar Joshi …….Petitioner. Versus Utpal Kumar, Secretary, Public Works Department, Uttarakhand, Dehradun and others …Respondents. Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) Heard Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner has filed this contempt petition bringing to the notice of this Court of an alleged violation of Court’s order dated 21.12.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 1251 of 2004 (S/S). The operative portion of the order passed in the aforesaid judgment reads as follows :- “5. In view of the above a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to consider regularisation of the petitioner who was discharging the duties of class III post on daily wage basis prior to 30.06.1998 against the existing vacancies and who had come outside the purview of Public Service Commission before making any regular appointment in accordance with relevant Rules and the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 82 of 2004.” In the contempt petition, the petitioner has stated that inspite of the direction, as referred above, no order has been passed by the respondents. All the same, while filing their reply to the notice issued in the contempt 2 petition, the Chief Engineer Level-2 Sri K.C. Upreti, who is one of the respondents, has stated that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 21.12.2005, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation has been considered and it has been found that as per the Regularisation Rules 2002, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered, as he is already working as a regular employee as work agent. The claim of the petitioner that he has been discharging duties of a superior post i.e. class III post apparently could not have been considered under the Rules, according to the respondents. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that since the Court itself has issued a Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation, not regularising the services of the petitioner amounts to contempt of Court, cannot be accepted. The order dated 21.12.2005 was only for considering the claim of the petitioner for regularisation. This claim has been rejected, as according to the respondents, the petitioner cannot be regularised on class III post as per the Rules. Now, the petitioner may still have a case to challenge the order in a regular service jurisdiction, but no contempt is made out against the respondents since order dated 21.12.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 1251/2004 (S/S) has been complied with. Contempt petition therefore has no merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Notices earlier issued to the respondents are also stand discharged. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 15.2.2011 Avneet