THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:1711 OF 2009 DATE:23.08.2011 BETWEEN SMT.R.VENKATA SUBBA LAKSHMI …PETITIONER AND SRI ADHAR SINHA, I.A.S & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:1711 OF 2009 ORDER: The present contempt case is filed by the petitioners seeking to punish the respondents under sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act for non implementation of the order of this Court dated 26.9.2008 passed in W.P.No:24387 of 2005. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not sanctioning and releasing all the terminal benefits including family pension, pension arrears and gratuity to her and consequently to direct the respondents to sanction and release all the terminal benefits including family pension, pension arrears and gratuity forthwith with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the demise of her husband. By order dated 26.9.2008, the said writ petition was disposed of interms of the order passed in W.P.No:10970 of 2003 and batch dated 31.7.2008 wherein a common order was passed thus: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel that pursuant to the interim order, the petitioners pensionary benefits have been settled, the respondents are directed to finalize the payments of terminal benefits to the petitioners in the same process in which their pensionary benefits have been settled in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent that the order passed by this Court has been complied with by paying the necessary amounts. In view of this submission, it can be said that the order of this Court has substantially complied with and therefore, the question of disobedience of the order of this Court, does not arise. But, however, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount that has been paid by the respondent is not in fulfledged compliance of the order of this Court. If that being the case, it is open for the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the respondent and in such an event, it is for the respondent to consider the same. With the above observation, this contempt case is closed. No costs. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah. Gurc. Date:23.8.2011 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:1711 of 2009 DATE:23.08.2011