THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.C. No. 1524 of 2010 O r d e r: Alleging that the respondents, have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders dated 19.12.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 26919 of 2008 by not complying the directions given therein, and as such, they are liable to be punished for contempt, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. By the order dated 19.12.2008, non-compliance of which, the petitioner complained in this contempt case, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 15.10.2008 of the petitioner, said to have been made by him requesting to reinstate him into service, since Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2766 of 2008 was allowed on 19.09.2008, in accordance with law expeditiously. Pursuant to the notice before admission ordered by this Court, 26.10.2010, the respondents entered their appearance and filed counter stating that upon receipt of the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by this Court, and in compliance thereof, they have considered the representation dated 15.10.2008 of the petitioner, and upon examining the request of the petitioner, with the approval of the Chairman/VPT, vide orders dated 05.11.2009, informed him that his request for reinstatement cannot be conceded, and they have also produced a copy of the order dated 05.11.2009. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the Special Leave to Appeal was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide orders dated 19.09.2008, the respondents ought to have reinstated the petitioner into service, the fact remains, this Court did not pass any positive orders directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. What all this Court directed was to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, since the said representation was said to be pending consideration with the respondents. Since the respondents, in compliance of the orders of this Court, considered the representation of the petitioner and passed orders, they cannot be said to have committed any contempt of the orders of this Court. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 05.11.2009 passed by the respondents, rejecting his request for reinstatement into service, he is at liberty to assail the same in separate proceedings, but he cannot complain that the respondents have committed contempt of the orders of this Court. There is no merit in the contempt case, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 15th December, 2010 KSR