1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.116 OF 2009 Mr. Naresh Govind Vaze .....Petitioner Versus The District Judge, Nashik & Ors. .....Respondents. Mr. Naresh Govind Vaze in person. Mr. P.S. Dani for Respondent Nos. 1 & 4. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP for Respondent Nos.2,3 & 5. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 24th JUNE, 2009. P.C. : Heard, Petitioner in person, Mr.Dani, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 &4 and Mr.Patel, AGP for Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5. 2. By this Contempt Petition, the Petitioner alleges that Respondent No.2, willfully disobeyed the order of the Joint Secretary to the Government passed on 14th December, 2005, which is annexed at Exhibit 1. 3. By the order dated 14th December, 2005, the Petitioner was compulsorily retired from service, however, he was held entitled for two-third compulsory retirement pension as admissible under Rule 100 of Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982. This order was challenged by the Petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.1354 of 2006. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 11th July, 2006. The Petitioner thereafter approached the Apex Court against the order of the Division Bench by filing Civil Appeal No. 5608 of 2007. However, the same was also dismissed by the order dated 4th December, 2007. 2 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he has not been granted two-third compulsory retirement pension in view of objection by the Respondent No.2 -The Accountant General viz. Petitioner has not completed ten years of qualifying service. The Petitioner submits that the order dated 14th December, 2005 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government having been confirmed by the High Court, the Respondent No.2 cannot now say that the Petitioner has not completed ten years of qualifying service and therefore, the said Respondent has committed contempt of this court. 5. The submission of the Petitioner is not acceptable. Under the Order dated 14th December, 2005 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government, the Petitioner compulsory retired and was held entitled to two-third compulsory retirement pension. The Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of compulsory retirement before the High Court and the Apex Court. If order of Respondent No.2, according to Petitioner is erroneous, then the Petitioner has option to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court for challenging the said order. However, the Contempt Petition is not appropriate remedy. The Petition is misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed. Certified copy of the order, expedited. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)