1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Contempt Petition No. 203 of 2008 (Ms. Sadhana Kashinath Ramteke & ors. VS. State of Mah. & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.A. Gode, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, A.G.P. for R-1. Mr. J.S. Mokadam, Adv. For R- 2 and 3. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 6 th January, 2009 By this contempt petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have willfully and intentionally committed the contempt of the orders passed by the division bench of this Court on 4/8/2008 and 11/9/2008. By an order dated 4/8/2008, in Writ Petition No. 3397/2008, the division bench of this Court, while issuing the notices to the respondents, had directed the parties to maintain status quo till the returnable date. Subsequently, by an order dated 11/9/2008, the division bench of this Court directed that the interim order dated 4/8/2008 would be in 2 operation till the decision is taken by the State Government. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of the order dated 4/8/2008, though the petitioners were in service as on that date, the services of the petitioners were illegally terminated with effect from 1/8/2008. After the filing of this petition, the respondents issued an order dated 6/11/2008 permitting the petitioners to join duties with effect from 1/8/2008. During the pendency of this petition, in the order dated 17/11/2008, it was observed by this Court that the respondents were expected to make payment of the salary from 1/8/2008, within two weeks from the date of the order. Since some of the petitioners were not paid the salary till 8/12/2008, this Court, by the order dated 8/12/2008, directed that the compliance be made till 6/1/2009. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that this Court had granted an opportunity to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to purge the contempt by making the payment of the salary and the salary has now been paid to 3 all the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the salary of the petitioners has been paid by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The counsel for the petitioners, however, states that the petitioners have not been granted two increments though they were entitled for the same. The leaned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 disputes the entitlement of the petitioners for grant of increments. It appears from the submissions made on behalf of the parties that the respondents have purged the contempt by permitting the petitioners to join their duties from 1/8/2008 and by paying their entire salaries with effect from 1/8/2008. The orders passed by the division bench on 4/8/2008 and 11/9/2008 do not speak of grant of any increments to the petitioners. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents have committed contempt of the orders passed by the division bench of this Court on 4/8/2008 and 11/9/2008 by not paying the two increments, is, therefore, not acceptable. 4 For the reasons aforesaid and in the interest of justice, it is not necessary to continue the contempt proceedings against the respondents any further. The contempt petition is, therefore, disposed of. JUDGE RMP