1 Contempt Petition No.23/2010 in Writ Petition No.79/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.23 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.79 OF 2008 Vithal s/o Tulshiram Jadhav ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri K.B. Jadhav, Advocate for petitioner Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for State ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 27th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order dated 11.8.2009, passed by the Division Bench of this Court. While allowing to withdraw the writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court, in the said order, recorded the statement of the A.G.P., who made the said statement on instructions from the Deputy Director of Health Services, Aurangabad, who was present in the Court, that one post of X-Ray Technician is kept vacant and the respondents are willing to accommodate the petitioner on the said post and appointment order in favour of the petitioner would be issued within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the order by the Division Bench i.e. 11.8.2009. 2 Contempt Petition No.23/2010 in Writ Petition No.79/2008 2. Pursuant to the notice issued in this contempt petition, affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent No.2 Arun Bandurao Tekale, working as Deputy Director, Health Services, Aurangabad. In the said affidavit-in-reply in para 12, it is stated that, the petitioner is appointed as X-Ray Technician at Sasoon Hospital, Pune. This position is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that he is not appointed in the Department of Health Services at Aurangabad. His further contention is that, the said post of Technician is temporary and not a permanent, therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioner, there is no compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. In my opinion, from careful reading of the order of the Division Bench in the light of the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.2, the order of Division Bench has been complied with. I do not see any disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench. If the petitioner is aggrieved for non compliance of his prayers in the Writ Petition, he can revive the Writ Petition. However, this is not the case of contempt. Hence, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/cp23.10