[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
6 April vs Ranjeet Sinha & Anr on 6 April, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2026:UHC:2413
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Civil Contempt No. 509 of 2020
06 April, 2026
Naresh Das --Petitioner
Versus
Ranjeet Sinha & anr. --Respondents
With
Civil Contempt No. 482 of 2020
Shubham Ramola --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
With
Civil Contempt No. 440 of 2020
Yogesh Bhatt --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
With
Civil Contempt No. 441 of 2020
Bipin Jayara --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
With
Civil Contempt No. 442 of 2020
Ramesh Chandra Sharma --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
With
Civil Contempt No. 443 of 2020
Vinod Chandra Joshi & Anr. --Petitioners
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
Civil Contempt No. 444 of 2020
Sunil Aswal --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
Civil Contempt No. 462 of 2020
Geeta Nagarkoti --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
Civil Contempt No. 463 of 2020
1
2026:UHC:2413
Mohan Singh --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
Civil Contempt No. 464 of 2020
Pankaj Singh Kholia --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
Civil Contempt No. 465 of 2020
Madhu Negi --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
Civil Contempt No. 533 of 2020
Harish Chandra Pandey --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
Civil Contempt No. 534 of 2020
Amit Kothiyal --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
Civil Contempt No. 536 of 2020
Balesh Kumar Katarya --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
Civil Contempt No. 537 of 2020
Kusum Verma Shah --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
Civil Contempt No. 538 of 2020
Mamta Kanyal --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
Civil Contempt No. 539 of 2020
Rajesh Kumar --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
Civil Contempt No. 540 of 2020
Deepak Rawat --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
Civil Contempt No. 542 of 2020
2
2026:UHC:2413
Vinod Singh --Petitioner
Versus
C Ravi Shankar & Anr. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. M C Pant, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Ganesh Kanpal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
1. All these contempt petitions have been moved for initiating the
proceeding under the Contempt of Court's Act for non compliance of
the judgment and order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated
10.10.2018 in bunch of the writ petitions the leading one is WPSS No.
2271 of 2018, Pankaj Negi vs. State of Uttarakhand and others.
2. As it appears from the judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge dated 10.10.2018 bunch of petitions were decided in terms of
the judgment dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Division Bench in
Special Appeal No. 258 of 2012. Judgment dated 11.12.2012, passed
by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 258 of 2012 is also
enclosed and the operative portion of the said judgment is being
reproduced herein as under:-
"2. The State Government has filed an affidavit, where it has stated
that the said letter dated 30th December, 2008 applies only to those
Industrial Training Institutes and Industrial Training Centres, which are
seeking new affiliation. We do not accept the said contention. The mandate
contained in the said letter is required to be reflected in the affiliation
proforma and, at the same time, the Standing Committee inspecting the
Institutes is also to ensure that the salaries of the instructors, appointed on
contract, are at par with regular faculty. Therefore, while applying for
affiliation, the condition contained in the letter dated 30th December, 2008
has to be complied with and affiliated Industrial Training Institutes or
Industrial Training Centres are also required to comply with the directions
contained in the said letter, inasmuch as, the Standing Committee
inspecting the Institutes, which have already got affiliation, has been
directed to ensure that the salaries of instructors appointed on contract
2026:UHC:2413
basis, are at par with regular faculty. The State Government, in its counter
affidavit, has stated that the said direction dated 30th December, 2008 is
not binding on it, inasmuch as, it does not get any financial assistance
from the Central Government pertaining to remuneration payable to
faculty members of Industrial Training Institutes and Industrial Training
Centres. The fact remains that the Industrial Training Institutes and
Industrial Training Centres are functioning because they are affiliated
with the Director General of Employment & Training. If the State
Government is to keep and maintain such affiliation, it is bound to accept
the directions contained in the said letter dated 30th December, 2008,
whether it receives any grant or financial assistance from the Central
Government or not.
3. We, accordingly, hold that the State Government, in the matter of
payment of remuneration to the appellant, a contract faculty, is bound to
honour the directions contained in the said letter dated 30th December,
2008 of the Director General of Employment & Training.
4. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment and order
under appeal is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of by directing
the State Government to pay the difference of the remuneration to the
appellant within three months from today and to continue to pay
remuneration to him in accordance with the directions contained in the
said letter dated 30th December, 2008, until such time, appellant continues
to discharge duties as a contract faculty."
3. Another Special Appeal No. 154 of 2019 was also filed by the
State and the same was also dismissed on the ground that the order
under Appeal is a consent order and an intra-court appeal, in terms of
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, would not lie
and dismissed the appeal on 11.03.2019. While dismissing the
aforesaid appeal, the liberty was sought to seek review of the
judgment and the liberty was granted to file review against the order
under appeal.
4. Thereafter various review applications were moved, however,
all the review applications were also dismissed on 30.03.2020.
Thereafter contempt petitions have been moved.
2026:UHC:2413
5. In the contempt petition response affidavit has been filed by
respondent no. 1 Secretary, Skill Development and Employment and
simultaneously response affidavit has also been filed by respondent
no. 2.
6. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended
that against the order rejecting review application, the respondents
went in an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court but the same was
also dismissed.
7. Today, Mr. Ganesh Kanpal, learned Addl. Advocate General, on
instructions, informed to this Court that special fund has been allotted
in order to comply the judgment passed by the Division Bench dated
11.12.2012 and the necessary budget will be released by the end of
this month and thereafter disbursement will be made to the petitioners
as per law.
8. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel submits that if such a statement
has been given then there is no useful purpose to continue the
proceedings of all these contempt petitions.
9. In such view of the matter, particularly in view of the statement
as given by Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Addl. Advocate General that
fund has been allotted and the budged will be released by the end of
this month, there is no useful purpose to continue the proceeding of all
these contempt petitions, since, the judgment in fact has been
substantially complied with.
10. In such view of the matter the proceeding of all the contempt
petitions are closed. It is made clear that if there is no further
compliance the petitioners are free to approach this Court.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
Parul
2026:UHC:2413
