 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Contempt Petition No. 40 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 616/2007 (decided) (Dr. Kamalkishor Ghanshyamdas Rathi Vs. Smt Chandra Ayyangan and ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. N.R. Saboo, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 30 th MARCH, 2009 By this petition, the petitioner seeks an action against the respondents for willful non-compliance of the order passed by the High Court on 10/6/2008 in Writ Petition No. 616/2007. It appears that the petitioner had challenged an order passed by the State Government on 3/2/2005, holding that the period of absence of the petitioner from 26/1/1997 to 26/2/1999, be treated as extraordinary leave and the same would not be counted for the purpose of service benefits including the pension. The original application was partly allowed by the Maharashtra  Administrative Tribunal and the order impugned therein was partly quashed and set aside. The State Government was directed to treat the period of absence from 26/1/1997 to 26/2/1999 as on duty for the purpose of release of salary to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of the order. The petitioner challenged the part of the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 29th of September, 2005, so far as it upheld the impugned order dated 3/2/2005. The division bench of this Court by the order dated 10th of June, 2008, disposed of the Writ Petition No. 616/2007 filed by the petitioner, by observing that the Department should take note of the communication dated 3/2/2005 to mean that the period of extraordinary leave of the petitioner be reckoned for the purpose of any service benefit and for benefit of pension, in accordance with the rule, as is provided by the extant rules. It appears from the order dated 10th of June, 2008 passed by the division bench of  this Court in Writ petition no. 616/2007, that this Court has not issued any directions whatsoever to the respondents herein. It, therefore, cannot be said that the respondents have not complied with the order passed by the High Court on 10/6/2008 much less have willfully disobeyed the same. In case the petitioner is seeking the compliance of the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 29th of September, 2005, the petitioner can execute the said order under the provisions of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Act 1985. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP