2025:UHC:1331 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CLCON No. 188 of 2024 With CLCON No. 224 of 2024 CLCON No. 227 of 2024 CLCON No. 240 of 2024 CLCON No. 242 of 2024 CLCON No. 243 of 2024 CLCON No. 286 of 2024 CLCON No. 328 of 2024 CLCON No. 235 of 2024 CLCON No. 225 of 2024 CLCON No. 231 of 2024 CLCON No. 233 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Ms. Prabha Naithani & Mr. K.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. J.S. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party. 3. These contempt petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience of interim orders passed in different writ petitions. Operative portion of the interim order passed in WPSS No. 531 of 2024 & WPSS No. 532 of 2024, which allegedly has been violated, is extracted below:- “Meanwhile, as an interim measure, respondent nos. 2 & 3 are directed to retain the petitioners as Data Entry Operators/Junior Assistants/Clerks as they have been working before the impugned order dated 29.12.2024.” 4. It is not in dispute that all the writ petitioners have been taken back in service and they are now discharging duty as Data Entry Operator/Junior Assistant/Clerk in State Tax Department. They allege that the remuneration, which is being paid to them, is less by ₹1,000/- than what they were getting earlier. 2025:UHC:1331 5. Mr. J.S. Bisht, learned State Counsel submits that petitioners have not mentioned the amount, which they were getting as remuneration earlier, anywhere in the contempt petition and they have also not filed any affidavit, indicating the quantum of reduction in their remuneration. He further submits that learned Writ Court had directed to retain the petitioners, as before and in deference to the order passed by Writ Court, all the petitioners were taken back in employment in the service in the same status, as they were enjoying before. Thus, he submits that it is not a case of wilful disobedience and whatever direction was issued, has been complied with. 6. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the opposite parties. Since petitioners have been restored back in employment in the same capacity, as before, therefore, no violation of the order passed by Writ Court appears to have been made. 7. Accordingly, the contempt petitions are closed. Notices issued to the opposite parties are hereby discharged. However, petitioners shall be at liberty to make representation to the Competent Authority for redressal of their pending grievances, if any. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 25.02.2025 Aswal