IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CIVIL CONTEMPT NO.269 OF 2009 Ashok Kumar aged about 40 years S/o Hardan Singh, R/o 50 Adarsh Colony, Nehru Road, Subhash Nagar, Dehradun ………Petitioner Versus S.S. Rawat presently posted as Managing Director of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Ltd., 117, Indra Nagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand …Contemnor/Opposite Party Dated: May 17, 2010 Sri A.N. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Sri Sharad Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by Sri DCS Rawat, Adv. for respondent HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this contempt petition, the petitioner has prayed to summon and try the contemnor for the willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 7.7.2009 passed by this Court in WPSS No.164 of 2008. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. Vide judgment and order dated 7.7.2009, this Court while disposing of the writ petition directed the respondent-Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation that in case the petitioner moves an application before him, the same shall be decided by him assigning alternative jobs, which the Managing Director deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances to be given to the petitioner under Regulation 76 of the Service Regulation, 1981. Against the said judgment and order- dated 7.7.2009, the respondent/Uttarakhand Transport Corporation preferred a special appeal which too was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2009. Now, the petitioner states that the opposite party has the definite knowledge of the orders passed by this Court but till today, the orders have not been complied with. Hence this contempt petition. Initially, along with the counter affidavit of the opposite party, a copy of the office order dated 20.11.2009 was annexed as Annexure CA2 to the counter affidavit. In that affidavit, it was stated that as per the official records, the petitioner was assigned the alternative job to make the passengers seated in the bus at ISBT, Dehradun but that was not done by him. It was also stated that several times, orally the petitioner was directed to work as a Helper and Water Boy but he also refused to do that work. It was also stated that the petitioner was evading in doing the alternative work assigned to him by taking undue advantage being an officer bearer of the Union. It was further stated that in the facts and circumstances as narrated in the counter affidavit, it was not possible to assign any alternative job to the petitioner. Thereafter, a compliance affidavit was also filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation along with which also the copy of office order dated 19.12.2009 was annexed. In that order, it was stated that ignoring the past behaviour of the petitioner and sympathetically considering the case of the petitioner, he was deputed in Kotdwar Depot to work as a Helper under the Assistant General Manager. Now, after considering the above-said facts and circumstances of the case and also seeing the conduct of the respondent that earlier the petitioner was granted the alternative job to work at ISBT Dehradun to make the passengers seated and thereafter, he was directed to work as a Helper and Water Boy, but the petitioner refused to do that work and now taking into consideration the present compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party in which it is stated that the petitioner has been deputed at Kotdwar Depot to work as a Helper, I find that it cannot be said in any way that the opposite party has committed any willful disobedience to the judgment and order dated 7.7.2009 passed by this Court in WPSS No.164 of 2008. All the above-said facts and circumstances clearly show that the order passed by this Court has been complied with and it cannot be said that the opposite party has flouted the judgment and order passed by this Court. For the reasons as aforesaid, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notice issued against the respondent is discharged. (Dharam Veer, J.) May 17, 2010 Rajeev Dang