1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 73 OF 2008 Ramu s/o. Hiraman Rathod ....Petitioner. Versus Shrichand Gorba Rathod & another ....Respondents. with CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 74 OF 2008 Ramusing Janusing Rathod ....Petitioner. Versus Shrichand Gorba Rathod & another ....Respondents. with CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 75 OF 2008 Padmakar Chandrabhan Badge ....Petitioner. Versus Shrichand Gorba Rathod & another ....Respondents. Shri. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for the petitioners in all petitions. Shri. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the respondents in all petitions. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 2nd December, 2009 2 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri. Bhavthankar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions. These petitions complain willful disobedience of the decision given by the appellate authority/Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad dated 31.1.2006 in Appeal Nos.6, 7 and 8 of 2004. As per this order, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners in service. The complaint is that this order has not been complied with, as the petitioners have not been reinstated in the service in spite of this order. 2. Shri. Salunke, the learned counsel for respondents, has urged that the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Special Court, is not a Court within a meaning of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act and therefore, the present contempt petition is not maintainable. Shri. Bhavthankar is, however, unable to point out as to how the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Special Court, possesses the trappings of Courts. There is absolutely no material placed on record to appreciate the said contention. In view of this, the present petitions cannot be entertained. The same are, therefore, dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp73.08