{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.352 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2202 OF 2008 Kaduba Babulal Gavhane PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. M.S.Chaudhari, Advocate for petitioner Mr. N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr.U.K.Patil, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 29th March 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard. By way of this contempt petition, the petitioner has approached this Court, as according to the petitioner, the order dated 21.08.2008 passed in writ petition No.2202/2008 is not complied with by the respondents. 2. This Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, has observed - “The respondents to examine whether the {2} petitioner‘s appointment was against sanctioned post and made by following due procedure of law. If that be so, then respondents are bound to grant continuity of service of the petitioner for the period 25.06.1992 to 25.05.1997”. 3. It appears that one Civil Application came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein a party was ordered to be added. Accordingly, order was passed, however, does not find effected in the main petition. 4. One Mr.Mohammed Fayyaz, Joint Director of Higher Education, Aurangabad has filed an affidavit in reply on 30.03.2009. It is contended that the directions were given to the Principal of respondent College to tag the continuous service of the petitioner for the period 25.06.1992 to 25.05.1997 on notional basis and necessary entries may be taken in the service book. It appears that as the respondents No.2 and 3 were not appeared, bailable warrants were issued against them. The respondents have moved civil applications No.3434/2010 and 3435/2010, which are allowed today. Respondents No.2 and 3 have filed affidavit on 16.02.2010. In para 11, 12 and 13, it is categorically stated by these respondents that as per the directions in writ petition No. 2202/2008, inquiry was made and order was passed for continuation of service of the petitioner for the period 25.06.1992 to 25.05.1997 and accordingly, directions are given to the Principal of the college to effect the entries in the service book. It is categorically stated that on 10.06.2009 cheque in the sum of RS. {3} 1,27,309/- is directed to be deposited in the account of the petitioner, which is accordingly deposited. 4. Thus, it is clear from the record that entries in respect of continuation of the petitioner in service are recorded in his service book and the payment due for the said period is also deposited by the respondents on 10.06.2009. The entire directions given in the order dated 21.08.2008 are complied with. If it is so then nothing is remained in this contempt petition, as alleged by the petitioner that the directions are not complied with. During the course of arguments certain submission are made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which are not subject matter of this petition and the same are not even pleaded in the petition. If the learned counsel for the petitioner argued certain facts, which are not pleaded, then it is not necessary to consider the same. 5. In substance, as the directions of this Court are complied with by the respondents, the contempt petition stands disposed of and the notices of contempt issued against the respondents are hereby dropped. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/cp352-08 {4} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4334 OF 2010 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.352 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2202 OF 2008 Dr.Rambhau S/o Vishwanath Kirdak APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4335 OF 2010 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.352 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2202 OF 2008 Arjun Dhondiram Patil APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. U.K.Patil, Advocate for applicants Mr. M.S.Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent No.1 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 29th March 2010 PER COURT: 1. By these applications, the respective applicants have prayed to recall the order dated 11.01.2010 of issuance of bailable {5} warrants against them or to keep the warrant in abeyance. 2. Heard. For the reasons stated in para No.2 to 6 of the application, it appears that the applicants do not remain present before this Court under the bona fide belief that as the affidavit is filed by respondent No.1 and as they are Government Servants, AGP would appear on their behalf. The belief of the applicants is bona fide. This Court is satisfied that their absence is not intentional or deliberate. In view of this, both the applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause “A” and the order of issuance bailable warrants dated 11.01.2010 is hereby recalled / cancelled. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/cp352-08