Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

CLCON/274/2015
2021 Latest Caselaw 1242 UK

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1242 UK
Judgement Date : 31 March, 2021

Uttarakhand High Court
CLCON/274/2015 on 31 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL
       ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2021
                        BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


     CONTEMPT PETITION No. 274 of 2015

BETWEEN:

Satish Chandra Tyagi.                      ....Petitioner
     (By Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate)

AND:
Bhajan Lal.                            ......Respondent
     (By Mr. D.S. Patni, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
     Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate)


                      JUDGMENT

Writ Petition (S/B) No. 26 of 2008 filed by the petitioner alongwith several others was disposed of by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.05.2013. Operative portion of the said order is reproduced below:

"3. Under the Rules, in order to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, an Assistant Engineer is in the feeding cadre and he is required to serve as such Assistant Engineer for seven years. As aforesaid, petitioners and the private respondents were promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineer on 7th November, 2000. Therefore, as on 7th July, 2008, they all had served for seven years as Assistant Engineers. Each of them was, accordingly, eligible for being considered for promotion. While the petitioners were not considered for promotion, private respondents were considered for promotion only on the ground that in view of the Circular

dated 22nd February, 2008, private respondents were treated to be senior to the petitioners in the posts of Assistant Engineers, when, in fact, the Rules say otherwise, i.e. that for seniority in the promotional post, i.e. the post of Assistant Engineer, the seniority in the feeding cadre, i.e. the post of Junior Engineer, shall be taken into account and there appears to be no dispute that in the posts of Junior Engineer, petitioners were senior to the private respondents. Consideration of the private respondents for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineer and non-consideration of the petitioners for the said promotion on 7th July, 2008 was mala fide, illegal and unsustainable. The said promotions are, accordingly, set aside. Respondents are directed to prepare fresh seniority list in accordance with the Rules discussed above."

2. In this Contempt Petition, it is contended that the order passed by Division Bench has not been complied with.

3. A compliance affidavit has been filed by Mr. O.P. Singh, Superintending Engineer, Construction Circle, Uttarakhand Pey Jal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam, Nainital. Alongwith said affidavit, Office Memo dated 01.02.2021 has been enclosed, whereby seniority of Assistant Engineers has been re- determined. Name of petitioner has been placed at Serial No. 95 in the said seniority list; while, the degree holder Assistant Engineers, who were directly recruited as Assistant Engineer (private respondents in the writ petition), have been placed below the petitioner. The orders of promotion passed by Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam on 03.02.2021 have also been enclosed with the said affidavit. At page no. 35,

the promotion order in favour of petitioner has been brought on record, whereby petitioner has been promoted retrospectively w.e.f. 07.07.2008, with the condition that petitioner shall not be entitled to claim arrears of salary, however, he shall be given pay protection.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain benefits have not been extended to the petitioner, even after passing of promotion order dated 03.02.2021.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent assures the Court that whatever benefits are due to the petitioner, in terms of the order of this Court and also in terms of promotion order dated 03.02.2021, the same shall be released to the petitioner within two weeks from today.

6. In view of the assurance given by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent, the Contempt Petition is closed, by taking his statement on record.

7. Contempt notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged.

8. Petitioner shall be at liberty to seek review of this order, if the assurance given to the Court is not fulfilled.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Arpan

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter