1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 242/2008 (Mr. S. Venkatachari VERSUS Mr. N. Mukherjee & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.A. Pathak, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.N. Phadke, counsel for the R-1 & 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2009. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks an action against the respondent nos.1 to 3 for flouting/disobeying the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 15.07.2008 in Writ Petition No.2655/2008 and for punishing the respondents accordingly. It appears that by an order dated 15.07.2008, while disposing of the Writ Petition No.2655/2008 as withdrawn, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority within a period of two weeks from the date of the order for redressal of his grievance. On the making of such a representation, 2 the Division Bench observed that the competent authority was expected to consider the same at the earliest. It is the case of the petitioner that the representation was made within the time prescribed but, the same has not been decided by the respondents within a reasonable time and therefore, the contempt petition is filed on 18.12.2008. The respondent no.1 had filed a reply to the notice before admission issued on 19.12.2008 and stated therein that the petitioner had made a representation to the respondents on 27.07.2008. The said representation thereafter was sent on 05.08.2008 to the Trustee UCO Bank Employees Provident Fund and Gratuity Fund at its Head Office at Kolkata and the Chief Manager of the UCO Bank, Sitabuldi, Nagpur forwarded yet another representation dated 22.09.2008 received from the petitioner to the Head Office at Kolkata on 30.09.2008. Thereafter, on 10.10.2008, the 3 respondent no.1 sent a set of forms duly filled in and received from the petitioner for appropriate disposal at the Head Office at Kolkata. By a letter dated 08.11.2008, the Provident Fund Department of UCO Bank at Kolkata sent a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,87,372=71 paise towards full and final settlement of provident fund dues. The said cheque was received by the respondent no.1 on 12.11.2008. Since the petitioner had met with an accident, he had authorised his brother to receive the cheque from the respondent and the brother of the petitioner has received the cheque towards provident fund dues on 22.12.2008. According to the respondents, the claim of the petitioner regarding payment of gratuity was rejected as inadmissible. It appears from a reading of the affidavit- in-reply that the respondents have not flouted the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 15.07.2008 as the competent authority was expected 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner at the earliest and no time was specified for deciding the same. The actions have been taken by the respondent quite diligently and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the respondents have committed contempt of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 15.07.2008. The contempt petition is dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE APTE