Uttarakhand High Court
CLCON/227/2023 of SHAKTI PRASAD BIJALWAN Vs PREETAM SINGH NEGI on 18 December 2025
Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS D/59 CLCON No.227 of 2023 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Reituparna Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or d ir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS D/59
CLCON No.227 of 2023 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Reituparna Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the respondent. The petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that order dated 12.09.2022, passed in WPMS No. 2133 of 2022, Shakti Prasad Bijalwan Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents. By its order, the Court has directed as follows:- “However, we dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the respondent-authorities to examine the petitioner’s claim, and to the extent that the same is found justified, the same should be remedied within four weeks. In case, the petitioner still has any outstanding dues, he may invoke other appropriate remedy available to him in law.” Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the claim of the petitioner has already been examined and an order has already been passed on 07.11.2025. He has referred to Annexure No.1 to the compliance affidavit. In fact, the petitioner has claimed the wages, but it has been held by the respondent authority that the petitioner did not work. The petitioner has disputed it. The petitioner disputes the rejection of his claim and it has separate cause of action. The dispute cannot be decided in this contempt proceedings. The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.12.2025 Sanjay