1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Contempt Petition No. 171 of 2008 (Pundlik Manikrao Tarode Vs. Sadanand J. Koche & anr.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr. G.G. Mishra, Adv. For respondents. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 20 th January, 2009 In an order dated 17th of December, 2008, this Court observed that the Court was not inclined to proceed against the respondents in contempt jurisdiction in view of the fact that the grievance of the petitioner was then redressed and the petitioner was reinstated in service. This Court had directed the respondents to pay the costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner from their pockets, within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. It appears that the costs of Rs. 10,000/- are paid by the respondents to the petitioner. Shri Mardikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, admits the receipt of Rs.10,000/- by his client. 2 Shri G.G. Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondents, states that the petitioner has been reinstated in service, costs of Rs.10,000/- have been paid and the arrears of salary payable to the petitioner would be paid to the petitioner and the petitioner would also be granted the continuity of service for the period during which he had not actually worked. A statement is made on behalf of the respondents that the arrears of salary would be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from today, and it would be held that the petitioner was in service during the period he was terminated and was subsequently reinstated. It appears that all the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed in view of the reinstatement of the petitioner, the payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- and the statement made on behalf of the respondents by the learned counsel for the respondents, today. Since this Court had observed in the order dated 17th of December, 2008, that it was not necessary to proceed against the respondent in contempt jurisdiction any further, the contempt 3 proceedings against the respondents are hereby dropped. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE RMP