Sunil Uniyal vs Anil Kumar
2026 Latest Caselaw 76 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sunil Uniyal vs Anil Kumar on 3 January, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

      HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               Civil Contempt Petition No. 260 of 2025

Sunil Uniyal                                                     ...Petitioner

                                   Versus

Anil Kumar                                                   ....Respondent

Present:-

       Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the petitioner.
       Mr. D.S. Patni, Senior Advocate (through video conferencing)
and Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the respondent.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court

that the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by this Court in WP (S/B) No.

579 of 2017, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. V. Shri B.M. Bhatt

and others ("the petition"), and the order dated 14.02.2025 passed in

Clarification Application Nos. (MCC No. 19229 of 2024 and MCC No.

19230 of 2024) in the petition have been wilfully disobeyed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. In the petition, in para 22 of the judgment, the Court

had observed as follows:-

"22. In view of the above discussion, the present Writ Petition are being allowed. The order of the Tribunal is being set-aside. A direction is being given to the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. to fix the seniority after giving the benefit of seniority to all the Assistant Engineers, who joined in the year 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 from the date of their joining the department, and keeping in view the rota quota between the direct recruits and the promotees. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment."

4. It appears that subsequently some confusion arose with

regard to rota quota, therefore, clarification applications were filed and

this Court on 14.02.2025, in the clarification applications observed as

follows:-

"11. This Court had in clear terms given directions as to what this Court has decided and this has been so stated in para 22 of the judgment. With regard to rota quota as such no direction has been made. The Court has simply stated "...and keeping in view the rota quota between the direct recruits and the promotees."

12. This Court only intends to clarify that rota quota shall be given in accordance with the existing statutory rules/regulations."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondent has though given the benefit of joining period, but the

selection year has wrongly been displayed in the compliance Office

Memorandum dated 04.06.2025. Learned counsel would refer to Sr. No.

61 in the Office Memorandum, which is Annexure 3 to the petition, to

argue that the candidate at Sr. No. 61 did join the service on

30.06.2009, which means that he was recruited in the recruitment year

2008-09; but, he has been placed below in the seniority list. There are

other candidates as well. Particularly, reference has been made to

candidate at Sr. No. 2, who joined on 08.01.2010.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent

submits that the respondent did not commit any wilful disobedience;

the candidates have been given the benefit of the Court's order from the

date of their joining in the Department, including the period of service,

which they had undergone for training. He submits that the seniority

has been fixed on the basis of the requisition or the vacancy of the year.

7. In fact, the issue before the Court in the petition was as

to whether the seniority would be counted from the date of substantive

appointment of a candidate from the date of induction as a trainee or

from the date of their substantive appointment in the cadre after

completing the training? As stated, in para 22 of the judgment dated

27.06.2024, this Court has categorically stated that the candidate shall

be given the benefit of seniority from the date of their joining in the

Department. But, the Court wrote a line further i.e. "and keeping in view

the rota quota between the direct recruits and the promotees". This is what

has been clarified by this Court on 14.02.2025, when the clarification

applications were filed.

8. The determination, which has been done by the Court

was that a candidate, who joined the Department and thereafter went

for training, his period of training shall also be counted while counting

his seniority. The issue before the Court was not as to how the rota

quota would be applicable between a direct recruit and a promotee.

That issue has not been determined.

9. The respondent has given the benefit to the candidate

including the period of training, but what is being argued is that rota

quota has wrongly been applied between the promotees and the direct

recruits. In this contempt petition, this determination cannot be done.

10. During the course of hearing, it is admitted that many

candidates have already challenged the seniority list, challenging the

manner in which rota quota has been applied.

11. In view of the above, this Court does not see to proceed

further in the contempt petition. The contempt proceeding is closed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 03.01.2026 Avneet/