1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 139 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2286 OF 2005 Gopal Govindra Ninave. .... Petitioner. V/s. Union of India through the Secretary & Ors. .... Respondents. ....... Mr. J.R. Rane for the Petitioner. Mr. Ravi Shetty with Kiran Kandpile for the Respondents. ........ CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 22ND JANUARY 2008. P.C. :- In the order passed by the Division Bench on 6th October 2006, in Writ Petition 2286 of 2005, relief was granted to the Petitioners – Lift Operators before the Court. This is evident from the directions 2 issued by the Court in paragraph 17 of the judgment which read as follows :- “(i) The Petitioners Lift Operators will be entitled to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 from 1.1.1973 and correspondingly pay scale based upon 4th and 5th Pay Commission; (ii) The Petitioners Lift Operators annual increments will also be fixed in the revised pay scale; (iii) The Petitioners Lift Operators, however, will be entitled to backwages as per the Annexure “H” dated 13.9.2001 with effect from 1.1.1973.” 2. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Garrison Engineer, it has been stated that out of 188 Lift Operators whose names are appended in Exhibit `M' to the Contempt Petition, only 10 Lift Operators at Serial Nos. 36,79,116,129,130,136,140,177,178 and 182 were are Petitioners before the Court in Writ Petition 2286 of 2005. In the affidavit filed by the Garrison Engineer, it has been stated that payment to all these Lift Operators together with 43 Petitioners was made in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the Judgment and Order dated 6th October 2006. It has been stated that none of the other Petitioners 3 whose names have been mentioned in Exhibit ` M' to the Contempt Petition were parties to the earlier Writ proceedings before this Court. 3. It has also been stated in the affidavit that the persons on whose behalf the Contempt Petition has been moved had filed O.A. 162 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Mumbai. By its Judgment dated 19th June 2003, the Tribunal granted relief based on the revision of pay scales with effect from 3rd February 2003. The copy of this order is also annexed to the reply filed to the contempt proceedings. It has been stated in the reply that this order of the Tribunal has also been duly implemented. 4. In these circumstances, the Petitioners who were not parties to the proceedings before the Division Bench in Writ Petition 2286 of 2005 are not entitled to complain of the alleged non-compliance of the order of the Division Bench inasmuch as, from the reply it emerges that the order of the Division Bench has been duly implemented for all the Petitioners who were before the Court in those proceedings. In so far 4 as the Petitioners before the Court in the present contempt proceedings are concerned, they are governed by the order of the Tribunal dated 19th June 2003, which the Court has been informed, has also been implemented. 5. There is no merit in the Contempt Petition which is accordingly dismissed. ------