High CourtsSingle Bench

Dr. Tej Bahadur Singh vs Manoj Chandran & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 3 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 UK CK 0034

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Petition No. 210 Of 2014
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 312 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

This contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the interim order dated 03.07.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court in

WPSB No. 202 of 2014.

2.

By the said order, the order impugned in the writ petition dated 17.09.2013 was stayed with a further direction to the respondents to permit the

petitioner to work provisionally on the post he was appointed vide letter dated 10.09.2013.

3.

A counter affidavit has been filed by Mr. Vinod Singhal, Member Secretary, Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board,

Nemi Road, Dehradun (in short “UEPPCBâ€). In para 5 of the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that letter dated 10.09.2013, as mentioned

in the order of this Court, was not an order of appointment of the petitioner, but it was a communication of the Government, signed by the Additional

Secretary to the Member Secretary, UEPPCB to appoint the petitioner on deputation basis for a period of one year. It is further stated that the

Competent Authority to make appointment on the post of Chief Environment Officer is the Chairman of the UEPPCB. Thus, the factum of

appointment of the petitioner in UEPPCB has been denied in the counter affidavit.

4.

Mr. Pradeep Hariya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 has made a statement that WPSB No. 202 of 2014 was dismissed by

Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.09.2014.

5.

In view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit that petitioner was not appointed by the Competent Authority in the State Pollution Control Board

and further in view of the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a case of wilful

disobedience of this Court.

6.

Accordingly, contempt petition is dismissed. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged.