IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Restoration / Recall App. 762 / 08 Delay Cond. App. 4096 / 08 Impleadment App. 4097 / 08 In Civil Contempt Petition No. 16 of 2005 Smt. Manorama Kaintora W/o Sri Vijai Singh Kaintora R/o Near G.G.I.C. Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. Sri Mahabir Singh Bisht Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari District Pauri Garhwal at Pauri District Pauri Garhwal. 2. Sri H.S. Baunal Finance and Account Officer Basic Education, Pauri Garhwal at Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. ...…………. Respondents Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant / petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Recall / Restoration Application No. 762 of 2008 along with Delay Condonation Application No. 4096 of 2008, for restoration of Contempt Petition No. 16 of 2005. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit accompanying delay condonation application. The cause shown for delay in filing the recall / restoration application is found sufficient. Therefore, the delay is condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. 3) Also, heard on recall / restoration application. 4) Brief facts of the case are that applicant / petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 875 of 2004 (S/S) for payment of post retiral dues, which was allowed on 28.07.2004 with the direction that the District Education Officer, Pauri Garhwal shall make all payments relating to post retiral benefits along with 9 per cent interest thereon. In February 2005, Contempt Petition No. 16 of 2005 is moved by the applicant / petitioner complaining wilful disobedience of the courts order passed on 28.07.2004, in the writ petition. Notices were issued to the respondents / opposite parties, namely Sri Mahabir Singh Bisht, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Pauri Garhwal and Sri H.S. Baunal, Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Pauri Garhwal. The contempt petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2006, as infructuous, after Additional Advocate General made a statement that in compliance of order passed in the writ petition, post retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner, and as far as the interest part is concerned, State Government has been moved for sanctioning the funds. 5) Learned counsel for the applicant / petitioner does not deny that the petitioner has received post retiral benefits and the grievance remains only in respect of the interest part. 6) In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the order dated 28.08.2006, passed by this Court in Civil Contempt Petition No. 16 of 2005. Therefore, the recall / restoration application is rejected with the observation that the applicant / petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh contempt petition for alleged wilful disobedience of the courts order for non-payment of the interest awarded by the Court. (No order need be passed in Impleadment Application No. 4097 of 2008, in the above circumstances, which also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. September 12, 2008. H.Negi