1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Contempt Petition No. 167 of 2006 (Shri Anandrao Antaram Nakade Vs. Siddharth Maroti Haste & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. K.V. Kotwal, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr. Y.B. Mandape, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. Samudra Singh, Adv. For respondent no.3. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 20 th January, 2009 By the instant petition, the petitioner sought action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act for deliberately flouting the order passed by the division bench of this Court on 18/8/2004 in Writ Petition No. 1172/2004. In the order dated 18th August, 2004, it is observed by the division bench of this Court that the Assistant Government Pleader made a statement that the proposal of the petitioner herein was recently received by the Government and, therefore, a decision in regard to the fixation of the pay scale of the petitioner herein, would be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. 2 It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the solemn undertaking/statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader before the Court that a decision in regard to fixation of pay scale would be taken within a period of six weeks, the decision was not taken by the respondents either within a period of six weeks or till the filing of the contempt petition on 12/7/2006. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent- the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training that the proposal was returned to the office of the respondent no.3- the Principal of the College, for removal of certain deficiencies and the deficiencies were removed by the respondent no.3 on 8/12/2008. It is stated in the affidavit that immediately after the receipt of the letter from the respondent no.3 and after removal of the deficiencies, an order sanctioning a higher pay scale in favour of the petitioner with effect from 1/7/1998, has been passed. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that though there is some delay in complying with the orders passed by the Court, 3 in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the non-compliance was deliberate and willful. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the affidavits/submissions made on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3. It appears that the respondent no.1 had sent the proposal and the revised proposal to the respondent no.3 and the respondent no.2 passed the order sanctioning the higher pay scale to the petitioner after removal of the deficiencies by the respondent no.3. It is, therefore, not necessary in the interest of justice to proceed with the contempt proceedings against the respondents any further. In the facts of the case, the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents are hereby dropped. Notice dated 15/10/2007 stands discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE RMP