FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATIOIN NO. 2223/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3130/2001 NARAYAN LAWXMAN ASKAR ..VERSUS.. RAMDEOBABA SMARAK SARVAJANIK SAMITTEE AND ANOTHER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smt. Nilam Baila, Advocate, for applicant/Petitioner. CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 9 th OCTOBER, 2009. This is an application for modification on the ground that the respondents have not correctly calculated or calculated the gratuity in terms of Rule 160 of the Standard Code rather than Regulation 159 of the Code as ordered by this Court. So also the pay has been wrongly calculated and therefore, less amount has been paid to the petitioner. The reading of the order in Contempt Petition No. 1/2009, dated 8th April, 2009, shows that this Court has recorded the following finding in para 6. “6. In view of this, it cannot be said that the respondents have disobeyed the orders of this Court. The grievance was to whether the respondents were right or wrong in calculating the gratuity in terms of ٌRegulation 160 looses its relevance in view of the fact that the gratuity now shown to have been paid to the petitioner is correctly calculated in terms of Regulation 159 and definition of “Pay” in Clause (29) of Rule 2” In view of the above finding, it is not possible for me to travel beyond what this Court has stated in its contempt jurisdiction. The remedy of the petitioner may lay elsewhere. This application cannot be entertained. The same is dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit