1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 221 OF 2006 ( Vikas Manohar Bhuiyarkar & Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar Mandal, CGM, WCL ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SEPTEMBER 01, 2008. Heard Shri Dongre, Advocate for the petitioners – employees and Shri Mehadia, Advocate for the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent points out that as per orders dated 26.08.2008, the question to be considered is whether the revised policy issued on 20.3.2008, is applicable to the present petitioners. He points out that the last clause of the said policy expressly makes it applicable to pending cases and as per annexure “C” dated 20.5.2008, the Chief General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Umrer area has already communicated to the petitioners that they were not eligible for benefits of resettlement and rehabilitation policy. He, therefore, states that as claim for employment and ex gratia compensation was already considered and rejected, it was not pending in March 2008 when new policy came into 2 force. Shri Dongre, Advocate for the petitioners wants to contend that the norms have been relaxed after realising the difficulty and considering the welfare of displaced persons to provide for their resettlement and rehabilitation. He contends that the arguments of the respondent are, therefore, misconceived. I find that in contempt jurisdiction, the arguments of Shri Dongre, Advocate cannot be looked into. It is open to the petitioners to take appropriate steps for claiming benefit of revised policy, if the same is applicable to them. Contempt Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.