1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No.590 of 2009 In Contempt Petition No.231 of 2006 In Writ Petition No.1489 of 1994 (Decided) (Rajendrakumar s/o Ranjitsingh Chaudhari v. Shri G.S. Chug and others) ........................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................... Shri N.S. Warulkar, Advocate for Applicant/Petitioner. Shri A.S. Mehadia, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 18th JULY, 2011. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and Contempt Petition No.231 of 2006 is restored. The contempt petition is taken up for final disposal by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. On the last occasion, i.e. on 15-7-2011, it was made clear to the parties that the contempt petition shall be heard on merits on the next occasion. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed this Court on the merits of the matter. 2 The contempt alleged is about willful disobedience/breach of the judgment and order dated 25-7-2002 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1489 of 1994. The complaint is that this Court had directed the respondents to decide the manner in which the leave period should be treated, i.e. whether it should be leave with pay or leave without pay, and this has not been done. Undisputedly, after the judgment and order delivered by this Court on 25-7-2002, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and he has been dismissed from service on 10-5-2005. The appeal against such dismissal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 31-7-2006. Both these matters are the subject-matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.1710 of 2006, which has been admitted and is pending for hearing. The contention of Shri Mehadia, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, is that this Court had permitted the Competent Authority to take appropriate decision in pursuance of the report and also to decide the matter as regards the leave period. According to him, such a decision has been taken and it is the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition, which is pending for hearing. The question as to how the period of leave is to be treated is a matter of interpretation of the judgment delivered by this Court. The two views are possible and hence this 3 contempt petition cannot proceed further. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE pdl.