1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.49 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.3727 of 2008 (Amol s/o Nivruttirao Gulhane and another v. The Z.P., Yavatmal, through C.E.O. and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Ms G.R. Bamblani, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri V.V. Naik, Advocate for Respondents. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 24 th June, 2009 1. The two petitioners in the present Contempt Petition had filed Writ Petition No. 3772 of 2008 for getting the benefits, which had been given earlier to 12 petitioners, who had filed Writ Petition No.2681 of 2000 and 1087 of 2001, which came to be disposed of on 13-7-2006, as the respondent Zilla Parishad had by that time issued appointment orders to the said 12 petitioners. 2. Writ Petition No.3772 of 2008 came to be allowed by order dated 2-12-2008. The 2 operative part of the order reads as under : “6. Hence this petition succeeds. We direct the respondent No.3 – Zilla Parishad to issue appointment orders to the remaining four candidates, namely S/Shri (1) A.V. Shakharkar, (2) Panchal Narsingh Balajirao, (3) Amol Nivrutirao Gulhane, and (4) Rajesh Dnyaneshwar Patil, within a period of four weeks from today by extending the benefit of our earlier orders.” Since the petitioners had not been appointed in pursuance of the said order, they filed the present Contempt Petition. 3. After a notice was issued, the Zilla Parishad issued appointment orders dated 2-4-2009. When it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent – Zilla Parishad that the Zilla Parishad was supposed to comply with the order dated 2-12-2008 within a period of four weeks, the Zilla Parishad issued a corrigendum on 11-6-2009, whereby the petitioners were deemed to have been appointed on 2-1-2009 instead of on 2-4-2009, i.e. within a period of four weeks, which had been granted by this Court. 4. It is the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Zilla Parishad was supposed to “extend the benefits of the earlier orders in Writ Petition Nos.2681 3 of 2000 and 1087 of 2001”. It would, therefore, be necessary to grant the benefits to the petitioners with effect from 14-6-2006, the date on which the earlier 12 petitioners had been appointed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent – Zilla Parishad raises an objection to such a course. He points out that there was no occasion for this Court to pass orders in Writ Petition Nos.2681 of 2000 and 1087 of 2001, which were withdrawn. Therefore, by the expression “extending benefits of earlier orders”, all that the Zilla Parishad could infer was to accommodate the present petitioners also, though they had not knocked the doors of the Court. As soon as the present petitioners pointed out that they ought to be treated similarly, the Court had granted extension of the same benefits to them, as was granted by the Zilla Parishad to 12 petitioners in the earlier two petitions. 6. It cannot be said that there is any wilful disobedience of the order of this Court or that the order of the Court was deliberately misunderstood by the Zilla Parishad in order to disobey it. It had obeyed the order as it understood it. If the petitioners have any grievance, their remedy lies elsewhere and not by this contempt petition. 4 7. The petition is, therefore, disposed of. Judge. pdl