1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 176 OF 2008 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1591 /2007 (decided) (Madhukar Mahadeorao Ughade Vs. M.S.R.T.C. Nagpur) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Dr. A.H. Jamal, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. V.G. Wankhede, Adv. for R-Sole. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 17 th JANUARY, 2009. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks an action against the respondent for the intentional non- compliance of the order passed by the division bench of this Court on 25th of April, 2008 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 10/2008. It appears that by the order dated 25th of April, 2008, the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed and the appellant was awarded 50% back wages and other monetary benefits for the relevant period. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that the order passed by the division bench of this Court on 25th of April, 2008 was challenged by the respondent in Special Leave Petition No. 29301/2008 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while issuing the notice to the present petitioner, 2 had stayed the judgment and order passed by the division bench of this Court on 25/4/2008, subject to depositing of 25% of back wages. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent has deposited 25% of the back wages i.e. Rs. 1,98,150/- in this Court. In view of the aforesaid statement, and the statement made in pursis Stamp No. 633/2009, it would not be proper to continue with these proceedings. The petitioner is, however, permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,98,150/- deposited by the respondents in this Court as, by the notice issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 1st of December, 2008, the petitioner is merely asked to show cause as to why the special leave should not be limited to the question whether back wages be limited to 25%. Thus, it appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the division bench on 25/4/2008 so far as the payment of 25% of back wages is concerned. In the aforesaid circumstances, the proceedings against the respondent are hereby dropped. The notice issued to the respondent on 30/9/2008 stands discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE RMP