1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION (CAN) NO. 35 OF 2009 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 11 OF 2006 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.209 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2338 OF 2004(D) (GAURISHANKAR JAIPAL PATLE Vs. PREMLAL MESHRAM & OTH..) AND CIVIL APPLICATION (CAN) NO. 34 OF 2009 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 12 OF 2006 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.210 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2337 OF 2004(D) (SANTOSH BHANLAL RAHANGDALE Vs. PREMLAL MESHRAM & OTH..) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri A.S.Chandurkar, Advocate for petitioners. Shri S.G.Karmarkar, Advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2 Shri A.Y. Kapgate, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Shri A.M.Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent No.4. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : MAY 02, 2009. 2 1. This is an application for review of order dated 8th April, 2009. The applicant wants paragraph 5 of the order to be deleted. Paragraph 5 reads as under : “5.The petitioners should file undertaking that should they be found disentitled to salaries, they should refund to the Education Officer the amount received along with interest @ 12% per annum.” 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that this clause may give a handle to the contemners to reopen the question of entitlement of the applicant, which has already been concluded by various orders of this Court in the present proceedings, passed on 06.02.2008, 08.02.2008, 03.12.2008, 07.01.2009 and 26.03.2009. The learned counsel for the respondent Education Officer submits that criminal complaint cases have already been filed by the management against the applicants alleging fraudulent production of documents. He submits that should in that case fraud be proved the question of applicant’s entitlement may require to be reexamined and therefore, undertaking is necessary. 3 3. It is clarified that Clause (5) of order dated 8th April, 2009, which is reproduced above, is not intended to re-open the orders passed by this Court on 06.02.2008, 08.02.2008, 03.12.2008, 07.01.2009 or 26.03.2009. The respondents would not be able to take advantage of paragraph 5 of the order dated 8th April, 2009 for going behind the orders passed on the dates mentioned above. 4. With this clarification, the application is disposed of. 5. List the matter on 16th June, 2009. 6. Copy of this order be furnished to the parties as per rules. JUDGE RR.