2026:UHC:4515 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Contempt No. 308 of 2026 08 June, 2026 Bhagwati Prashad Uniyal --Petitioner Versus Sri D K Singh and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sanjay Raturi, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent No.1-contemnor, through V.C. Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand-respondent No.2. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) The contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful and deliberate non-compliance of order dated 13.10.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the Writ Petition (SS) No. 1662 of 2025 Bhagwati Prashad Uniyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others. 2. The attention of this Court was drawn by learned counsel for petitioner to Para 5 and 6 of the order dated 13.10.2025, the same are reproduced hereinbelow:- “(5) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s claim was considered by Executive Engineer, Jal Sansthan, Tehri and recommendation was made to regularise him in service vide letter dated 28.5.2024, however Chief General Manager is sitting tight over the matter and no decision has been taken in the matter so far. (6) Since petitioner’s name has been recommended for regularisation and the matter is now pending before Chief General Manager, therefore, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Chief General Manager to consider the recommendation made by Executive Engineer concerned and pass necessary orders regarding regularisation in respect of the petitioner within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.” 2026:UHC:4515 2 3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that by the order complained of, respondent No.1-contemnor-Chief General Manager was directed to consider the recommendation made by Executive Engineer in respect of petitioner within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1- contemnor has drawn the attention of this Court on Annexure No.2 to the contempt petition and submitted that the case of petitioner was considered by respondent No.1-Chief General Manager and considered the recommendation made by Executive Engineer in respect of petitioner. But, he rejected the claim of petitioner vide order dated 12.12.2025. He further submits that claim of petitioner was rejected on the ground that petitioner was not working against the sanctioned post. 5. Having perused the order complained of and the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by respondent No.1- Contemnor, this Court is of the view that no contempt is made out. 6. Accordingly, the contempt petitioner is dismissed. However, petitioner may avail the appropriate remedy against the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by respondent No.1-Chief General Manager. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.06.2026 PN