THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Contempt Case No.1244 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was imposed the punishment of dismissal from service through order dated 28.06.2004. In the appeal preferred by him, the punishment was modified to the one of compulsory retirement. He approached this Court by filing W.P.No.13052 of 2007. The writ petition was allowed on 01.08.2008 and the order of punishment was set aside, on finding that the disciplinary proceedings were defective. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner and extend the consequential benefits, but were given the liberty to proceed further. The petitioner states that though an order of reinstatement was issued to him on 03.10.2008, on the next day itself, he was placed under suspension and ultimately through order dated 04.08.2009, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed. He contends that the acts and omissions on the part of the respondents constitute contempt of Court. Heard Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satya Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. In clear and categorical terms, this Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, extend the benefits and thereafter proceed further. A semblance of compliance was done by reinstating the petitioner but hardly before he took charge, he was once again placed under suspension. This is contrary to the letter and spirit of the order passed by this Court. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was subsequently imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. All the same, he cannot be denied the benefit for the interregnum period. Learned Advocate General on instructions submits that the respondents are prepared to pay the full salary for the period between 03.10.2008 and 04.08.2009 duly extending the benefit of increments for the period subsequent to the order dated 28.06.2004. This Court feels that such a course would constitute compliance and exempt the respondents from contempt. Hence, the contempt case is closed, directing that the respondents shall pay the salary for the period between 03.10.2008 and 04.08.2009 duly extending the benefit of increments, that would have accrued to the petitioner subsequent to 28.06.2004. The subsistence allowance if any paid to the petitioner during that period shall be given credit to. The right of the petitioner to be paid the difference of salary between 28.06.2004 and 03.10.2008 shall depend upon the outcome of the writ petition filed by him against the order, dated 04.08.2009. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 12.07.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Contempt Case No.1244 of 2009 Date: 12.07.2010 JSU