1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3889 of 2007 (Umesh Vithalrao Girme .vs. State & Ors.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D.D.Sinha and Mrs.Vasanti A. Naik, JJ. DATE : February 12, 2008. Heard Mr. S.A.Marathe, Adv. for the Petitioner and Mr.Khubalkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent No.1 and perused the impugned order. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dt. 4.12.2006 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur whereby the application moved by the petitioner seeking permission to initiate contempt proceedings against the present respondent nos. 2 and 3 came to be dismissed. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal vide order dt. 16.2.1999 passed in O.A.No.91 of 1997 partly allowed the O.A., however, it did not protect the Pay Scale of the petitioner, though the order of recovery was quashed and set aside. It is pertinent to note that, in the operative part of the order, the Tribunal has also mentioned that the respondents may inquire into the wrong payments and may take suitable action against the defaulter, if they 2 so desire. The above referred observations made in the said order by the Tribunal clearly show that the respondents were not precluded from conducting inquiry in respect of wrong payment, if any made by them, though in the earlier part of the order, recovery has been quashed and set aside. In that view of the matter, the impugned order, according to us, is just and proper and needs no interference. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Needless to mention that it is always for the parties those who are aggrieved by any part of the order to undertake appropriate remedies available in law. JUDGE JUDGE ssj