COPC No.77 of 2009 8.9.2009. Present: Mr.Atul Jhingan, counsel for the petitioner. By means of this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the Chairman and the Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India on the grounds that they have violated the directions given by this Court in LPA No.24 of 2006, decided on 24.7.2007. It would be pertinent to mention that vide the said judgment, we had allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner by the Bank is liable to be upheld. We had further ordered that in view of the fact that since no financial loss has been caused to the Bank, the respondent would be entitled to pension and gratuity. Mr.Atul Jhingan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the following part of the order: “However, keeping in view the fact that no financial loss has been caused to the Bank and keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur (supra), we are of the opinion that the respondent should be entitled to full pension and gratuity irrespective of his total period of service, as granted by the Apex Court in this case.” This contention of Mr.Jhingan cannot be accepted. It is true that in this part of the paragraph, we had referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur v. State Bank of India and another, (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 13, wherein the Apex Court had granted -2- pension and gratuity irrespective of the total period of service. However, our judgment does not end here. The further part of our judgment reads as follows: “In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside directing the disciplinary authority to reconsider the issue of imposition of penalty upon the respondent. However, the fact that the appellant has been dismissed from service shall not come in his way in the matter of payment of pension and gratuity, if otherwise payable and admissible to him.” It is clear from the second part of the judgment that payment of pension and gratuity was to be made to the petitioner only if otherwise payable and admissible to him. The only interpretation of this judgment can be that the order of dismissal was not to come in the way of grant of pension but the petitioner was required to fulfill other necessary requisites for the grant of pension. Admittedly, he does not fulfill the qualifying period of service for the grant of pension. Thus, there is no disobedience, much less wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court. Therefore, we find no merit in the contempt petition, which is dismissed in limini. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. September 8, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.