1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC No. 46 of 2008 Decided on: 23.5.2011 Vinod Kumar & others ….Petitioners Versus Siddartha Behura & others ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The present contempt petition arises out of the Civil Writ Petition No. 1524 of 2002, dated 16th May, 2008. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The retrenchment of the petitioners effected on 16th August, 2001 vide Annexure A-10 and similar notices issued to the petitioners are quashed and set aside. The retrenchment of the petitioners with effect from 16.8.2001 is declared void ab initio. The petitioners will be deemed to be in continuous service with the respondents with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization under Annexure A-1 on the premise that they had completed requisite number of days as observed by the Court with all consequential benefits. It is also declared that the petitioners 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No 2 were eligible to be considered for regularization under the out scheme/instructions issued in the year 2001 as well. The entire exercise will be completed by the respondents within a period of 6 weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.” 2. Mr. V.D. Khidtta, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents had preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment rendered in CWP No. 1524 of 2002, dated 16th May, 2008. The same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the Department had preferred a Special Leave Petition against the judgment rendered in LPA No. 68 of 2008 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has disposed of the Special Leave Petition as per the following operative portion of the judgment on 11th March, 2011:- “Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents states that the respondents shall not claim any back wages, if they are reinstated in terms of the impugned judgments. She, however, prays that the respondents should not be deprived of other service benefits. In view of the statement of learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, we dispose of the Special Leave Petition with the direction that the respondents shall be reinstated within four weeks from today. However, except for the benefit of continuity in service for the purposes of pension, they will not be entitled to any other relief.” 3 3. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents was called upon by this Court on 19th May, 2011 to implement the judgment rendered in CWP No. 1524 of 2002, dated 16th May, 2008, as modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 24235 of 2008, dated 11th March, 2011. He has placed on record a copy of the letter dated 23th May, 2011, whereby the petitioners have now been reinstated as DRM's. 4. The Court is of the view that since the final judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 24235 of 2008, dated 11th March, 2011, stands implemented, no further order is required to be passed. Consequently, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge May 23, 2011. (hl)