1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.P. NO.54/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1944/1996 Uddhav Dadaji Kawale ..vs.. Sudhir Thakre & others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Miss. Thengre, advocate for petitioner Mrs. Parihar, AGP for respondent no.1 & 4 Mrs. Jog, advocate for respondent no.2 & 3 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 26, 2010 . Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has complained that the respondents have deliberately breached the orders passed by this court vide judgment dated 29.9.2009 by not permitting the petitioner to join his duties and not taking any appropriate decision on the question of his seniority from the initial date of his appointment. It is brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel for the respondents by taking this court though the document annexed to the pursis dated 19.4.2010 that the petitioner has been permitted to join during the pendency of the contempt petition as his termination order dated 27.6.1996 was not upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that the representation made by the petitioner, making a request for continuity from the date of termination and also for seniority is under consideration of the respondent no.1 & 4 and the decision would be conveyed to the petitioner as soon as the same is decided by the respondent no.1 & 4. In view of the aforesaid position, it would be necessary in the 2 interest of justice to dispose of the contempt petition as apparently there does not appear any deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents to flout the orders passed by this court on 29.9.2009. The contempt petition is therefore disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP