The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Contempt Case No.715 of 2010 Dated 3rd June, 2010 Between: Kesani Kotamma …Petitioner And Sri Rama Chander and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.V.S.R.Anjaneyulu Counsel for the respondents: Mr.K.R.Sashidharan Nair for Mr.B.Damodar Reddy The Court made the following: Order: This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 27-04-2009, in W.P.No.27421 of 2008, by the respondents. In response to the notice issued in the Contempt Case, respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it i s inter alia stated that in compliance with the order passed in the Writ Petition, the Head Office gave credit advice for a sum of Rs.2,26,265/- towards Gratuity on 31- 12-2009 and Rs.7,29,711/- towards Provident Fund on 05-01-2010 to the Senior Manager, Allahabad Bank, Guntur Branch, for payment of the same to the legal heirs of late Kesani Subba Rao; that the wife and children of the deceased employee approached the respondents for payment of their share of terminal benefits and that they have received the same on 18-01-2010. It is further stated that the respondents were under the bonafide impression that the petitioner would approach the Bank for payment of her share after receipt of a copy of Credit advice issued by the Head Office, but as she did not immediately approach, the respondents could not make payment. It is further stated that on the petitioner approaching them, payment of Rs.1,82,427.75 ps towards Provident Fund and Rs.56,566.25 ps towards Gratuity was made through Bankers Cheque on 22-05-2010 and that the petitioner acknowledged the same. Respondent No.1 has expressed regret for delay in compliance on account of the reasons mentioned in the counter-affidavit. In support of these averments, respondent No.1 filed payment receipt issued by the petitioner. Since the petitioner is stated to have received her share of terminal benefits of the deceased employee, I am not inclined to continue the contempt proceedings further. The explanation offered by respondent No.1 for the delay in compliance is accepted and the Contempt Case is closed. As a sequel to closure of the Contempt Case, CA.No.428 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 3rd June, 2010 lur