-: 1 :- Contempt Petition No.22/2010 in Writ Petition No.589/1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.22 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.589 F 1997 Ashok Bhikanrao Deshmukh ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri B.R. Warma, Advocate for the petitioner Shri V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 1st December, 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard both the learned counsel. 2. The petitioner feels that the respondent No.2 has flouted and disobeyed the directions dated 16.7.2009 in Writ Petition No.589/1997 concerning absorption of petitioner in service. 3. The order in Writ Petition No.589/1997, material for resolving the present controversy, is spelled out in paragraph No.8 reproduced hereinebelow : -: 2 :- Contempt Petition No.22/2010 in Writ Petition No.589/1997 “8. In the result, all the above noted writ petitions are allowed and the impugned judgments and orders are quashed. It is, however, made clear that the respondents may be considered for absorption under the Scheme drawn as per Government Resolution dated 1.12.1995 if they are found eligible. They are granted liberty to make appropriate representations and if are found eligible, particularly, due to absorption of their juniors, their cases may be considered by the competent authority. The respondents, if they are found eligible, may be accommodated under the scheme drawn by the Government as per their seniority. Such appointments may be from the date of initial appointments. C.As. are also disposed of.” 4. The cause for the Writ Petition was a reference by the Deputy Commissioner, Labour, about retrenchment of the petitioner by the Government authorities. The learned Incharge Judge, Labour Court, Dhule on 29.3.1996 passed following order : “1. Reference is partially answered in affirmative. 2. The Termination Order dated 11/2/87 issued by the First Party to the Second Party Workman is stands hereby quashed and set aside being unjustified. 3. The First Party Employer is hereby directed to reinstate the Second Party Workman in service with continuity w.e.f. 11/2/87. 4. The prayer of the second party Workman for full backwages is stands hereby rejected. 5. There is no order as to costs. ” 5. As stated earlier, this order is quashed by this Court in -: 3 :- Contempt Petition No.22/2010 in Writ Petition No.589/1997 the Writ Petition quoted hereinabove in paragraph No.8 thereof. 6. The petitioner was working as a Muster Assistant from 3.10.1985 to 31.12.1985, thereafter from 2.4.1986 to 30.6.1986 and again from 1.10.1986 to 31.12.1986. Thus, the service of the petitioner with the respondent at the most could be from 1985 to 1986 for about 9 months. 7. The grievance of the counsel for the petitioner is, since clause (3) of order dated 29.3.1996 provide continuity of service effective from 11.2.1987 and there being an order on 29.3.1996 as on the date of Government Notification dated 1.12.1995, the petitioner should be deemed to be in employment and consequently, eligible for absorption in pursuance of the said scheme. 8. The relevant clause, upon which the petitioner falls is clause (3.1) of the resolution dated 1.12.1995, which illustrate that as on 31.5.1993, those of the employees who were in employment and whose seniority list was prepared, will be absorbed in the employment. Reading the above referred two orders either of the leaned Labour Judge and of this Court, no extraneous meaning could be put and interpreted that the petitioner would be deemed to be in employment on 1.12.1995, the date of Government Notification. It is curious, the very order of 29.3.1996 is set aside in -: 4 :- Contempt Petition No.22/2010 in Writ Petition No.589/1997 the Writ Petition, and banking thereof is not permitted in law. 9. Taking above aspects into consideration, I do not see any error or contempt on the part of the respondents in not activating in tune to the dismissal order in Writ Petition. In spite of these odds, if the policy of Government provides such re- employment on either a mass employment or otherwise, will be considered on its own merits particularly the petitioner herein being now 52 years old. Contempt Petition lacks merits, dismissed. Notice discharged. If the petitioner desires to make another representation even after decision dated 27.10.2010, the petitioner to move the authorities. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cp22.10