1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 247/2008 in WRIT PETITION NO. 1084/2008 (Decided) (Smt. Shobha w/o Sukhadeorao Kale Vs. Dhirajkumar) 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. Mr. S.A. Gordey, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. V.V. Naik, Adv. for R-Sole. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 27 th FEBRUARY, 2009. The contempt petition was filed for initiating an action against the respondent for willful non-compliance of the order passed by the division bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1084/2008 on 20th of August, 2008. It was the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner was promoted on the post of Public Health Nurse by an order dated 4/12/2008, the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion with effect from 1/5/1995 was not considered by the respondent. After issuance of notice before admission, the respondent has filed an affidavit in reply. It is stated in the affidavit that on 17/2/2009, the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion with effect 2 from 1/5/1995 was rejected. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that though there was some delay in deciding the representation/claim of the petitioner for deemed date of promotion with effect from 1/5/1995, same was not deliberate and intentional and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed contempt of the order passed by the division bench of this Court on 20th of August, 2008. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent, it is clear that the respondent cannot be said to have deliberately disobeyed the order passed by the division bench of this Court on 20/8/2008. The representation of the petitioner has now been decided on 17/2/2009, though there is some delay in deciding the same. In the interest of justice and in the aforesaid facts, it is necessary to drop the contempt proceedings against the respondent. The proceedings against the respondent are hereby dropped. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP