1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.125/2008 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7411/2006 Narpat Singh v. Shri Abheejeet Ghosh & Ors. Date of Order :: 15 th December, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Mukesh Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhati, for the respondents. .... By way of filing SBCivil Writ Petition No.7411/2006 the petitioner claimed for grant of semi permanent as well as permanent status as per the provisions of the Rajasthan P.W.D. (B&R), including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964. The claim of the petitioner was based on his tenure of service including the period in which he remained out of employment which was ultimately declared illegal by the Labour Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute. The petition for writ aforesaid came to be disposed of on 25.2.2008 with a direction to the respondents to pass necessary orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy. The respondents were also directed to decide the issue regarding grant of consequential benefits to the petitioner, if his claim for conferment of semi permanent and permanent status is established. 2 Alleging non compliance of the directions aforesaid, this contempt petition is preferred. A reply to the contempt petition is filed by the respondents alongwith a copy of the order dated 15.7.2008 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Jodhpur. As per the order aforesaid the respondents allowed semi permanent as well as permanent status to the petitioner. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has also shown me the acquaintance role making payment of a sum of Rs.3,55,535/- to the petitioner against arrears accruing to him for the period commencing from 14.6.1999 to 30.11.2008. It is also stated that the payment relating to back wages has also bee made to the petitioner. In view of the fact that the semi permanent as well as permanent status has already been conferred upon the petitioner and payment of wages is also made to the petitioner, I do not consider it appropriate to proceed against the respondents under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. As such, the contempt petition is dismissed. Rule issued is discharged. However, if the petitioner is having any grievance with regard to quantum of back wages as well as arrears determined by the respondents, he may approach to the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. It shall also be open 3 for the petitioner to challenge the date of grant of semi permanent or permanent status, if he is having any grievance relating to that. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.