1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 52 OF 2005 ( Uday Ganpat Gautel vs. Shri V.P. Sinha, CMD & Ors. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SEPTEMBER 24, 2008. Heard Shri Manoj Rajan Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner - employee and Shri Sundaram, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3. The Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 02.12.2003 observed that the statement made by the counsel for Union of India that the petitioner would be regularised as per the Rules and policy of the Government as and when his turn would mature, considering his entitlement, was accepted and the petition was, therefore, disposed of. The grievance in present contempt petition is that the petitioner has not been regularised since then till today, though proposal for his regularisation as also for his conversion from Part Time Casual Labour into Full Time Casual Labour was sent on 25.03.2004 simultaneously. During hearing, attention has been invited 2 to the fact that reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, reported at AIR 2006 SC 1806, is misconceived because two employees viz. Smt. E.V. Ravekar and Shri A.L. Deshmukh, were regularized subsequent to said decision. In the reply affidavit, the respondents have pointed out that though there was joint proposal for conversion of the petitioner from Part Time to Full time and for his regularisation, the first part of converting him into a Full Time employee was only approved and his turn for regularisation was to be considered as and when claim therefor was to mature. It is further stated that Smt. Ravekar was directly appointed as a regular Mazdoor on compassionate ground at Bhandara on 16.3.2001 in place of her husband. It is further stated that Shri Deshpande was already working as Full Time Mazdoor and from 4.10.2004 he was regularised as per policy then in existence. Shri Manoj Rajan, learned counsel has pointed out that date of regularisation of Shri Deshpande is deliberately mentioned as 4.10.2004 and in fact it is 4.10.2006, after verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (supra). He further states 3 that in case of present petitioner, no action was taken actually for two years. Had that action been taken, the petitioner would also have been regularized much before the delivery of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above mentioned case. The facts show that Smt. Ravekar was appointed on compassionate grounds after the death of her husband and therefore the present petitioner cannot compare himself with her. Shri Deshpande has been regularized on 4.10.2004 and it is stated on affidavit and hence in contempt jurisdiction, even if there is some mischief in it, no cognizance can be taken as no relief on that count can be given to present petitioner. The respondents have stated that though on 25.3.2004, the joint proposal was forwarded, the petitioner was only converted as Full time casual labour and his regularisation was to be considered subsequently. There is nothing on record to disbelieve this statement on affidavit. The contention of the petitioner that there is deliberate delay, also cannot be accepted because only two illustrations given by him are found to be not relevant at all. If the petitioner has got any grievance against the action on merits, he has to challenge it before the appropriate forum. 4 In the present facts, I find that no case for proceeding in Contempt of Court jurisdiction is made out. Contempt Petition is, therefore, disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.