1 CP-166.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.166 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5117 OF 2000 Smt. Sulochana K. Shinde .... Petitioner Vs. Ashok P. Bangale, The Principal Secretary & Ors. .... Respondents Shri Surel S. Shah for the Petitioner. Shri A.I. Patel, AGP, for Respondent No.4. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 23, 2010 P.C: 1. This petition complains of disobedience of interim orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition NO.5117 of 2000. The petitioner had claimed entitlement to pension. This Court while admitting the petition directed the respondents to pay sum equivalent to monthly pension to the petitioner from the month of October, 2000 till the petition is decided. This order was passed on 25-9-2000. Accordingly, the respondents paid every month 2 CP-166.07 an amount equivalent to monthly pension to the petitioner upto October, 2006. The petition itself came to be dismissed on 21-6-2007 whereby this Court held that the petitioner was not at all entitled to family pension. However, considering the age of the petitioner, who was a widow of 93 years old, the Court directed not to make any recovery in respect of the pension already paid. Now, the petitioner complains of non-payment of pension from November, 2006 till 21-6-2007. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on judgments of the Supreme Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and another v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., etc., reported in AIR 1997 SC 1240 and Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 4277, states that even if the party fails in getting final relief, that does not give a justification to the adversaries to disobey the interim orders passed. These observations are made in the peculiar facts of those two cases. In the present case the petitioner, who was not at all entitled to anything, had received doles from the State for six long years which the Court did not order to be recovered only looking at her advanced age of 93 years. 3 CP-166.07 Therefore, though ordinarily the State should have complied with even that order for the remaining part, I do not propose to entertain the petition and exercise the jurisdiction vested under the Contempt of Courts Act. The petition is dismissed. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)