1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.18 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.2866 of 2008 (Gopal s/o Kashinathrao Pawar v. Muthukrishnan Shankarnarayan) Shri A.R. Ingole, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 20th April, 2009 The petitioner makes a grievance that the order passed by this Court on 30-7-2008 directing the Zilla Parishad to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 21-1-2008 within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order has not been complied with. The respondent has filed an affidavit-in-reply vide Stamp No.2471 of 2009 pointing out that the representation dated 21-1-2008 was duly considered. On 4-9-2008, an order was passed, which has been annexed by the petitioner himself at Annexure-VI regularizing the duty period from 20-3-2007 to 31-5-2007. The representation dated 21-1-2008 makes a grievance about the period from 16-6-2006 to 31-5-2007. The representation itself shows that on 20-3-2007, the petitioner had been called at 2 Panchayat Samiti Amravati. As far as the period thereafter is concerned, it is already covered. In respect of the remaining period, the order at Annexure-VI shows that the petitioner was asked to furnish an explanation. This explanation seems to have been furnished on 11-9-2008 and the reminders were also sent by the petitioner on 8-10-2008 and 5-10-2009. Thereafter on 30-1-2009, the Block Development Officer wrote to the petitioner informing him that the period of absence from 24-6-2006 to 19-3-2007 could not be treated as duty period since he had not filed medical certificate while joining dutues on 20-3-2007. The petitioner was also informed that he should furnish the medical certificate so that the Department could decide whether to sanction leave or not. Thus it is clear that the Department was not sleeping over the matter. All the same, the order dated 30-1-2009 could have been passed promptly after the petitioner sent his letter dated 11-9-2008. Hence expressing disapproval for the delay in deciding the matter and accepting the apology of the respondent, the contempt proceedings are dropped. Judge. 3 Pdl.