1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 157/2008 (Srishti Society of Rural Initiative in Sustainable and Holistic Themes in India & others VERSUS N.P. Jadhav & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Kartik Shukul, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 5, 2009. By the instant contempt petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that the respondent no.1 has committed contempt of this Court's order dated 04.06.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.567/2006. Since the application for grant of unemployment allowance to the petitioners was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer Gadchiroli on the ground that the petitioner had not tendered the application for grant of unemployment allowance in person, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.567/2006. While deciding Writ Petition 2 No.567/2006 by the judgment dated 04.06.2007, the High Court directed the Sub Divisional Officer to undertake the scrutiny including the examination of the aspect of identity of the petitioners as employees under the Employment Guarantee Scheme and if the petitioner nos.2 to 7 were found to be eligible in accordance with the rules for grant of unemployment allowance, the same may be paid to them. Shri Kartik Shukul, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer, Gadchiroli, had earlier refused to grant the unemployment allowance to the petitioners on the ground that their applications were not traceable and subsequent to the judgment passed by this Court on 04.06.2007, the Sub Divisional Officer, Gadchiroli again held that the petitioners were not eligible for the unemployment allowance for the self same reasons. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Sub Divisional Officer, Gadchiroli, the 3 respondent no.1 to the petition, has deliberately flouted the directions issued by this Court by the judgment dated 04.06.2007. Shri Mandpe, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, took this Court through the submissions filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 and pointed out that respondent no.1 had given personal hearing to the petitioners on 04.07.2007. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners had failed to establish their identity as labourers under the Employment Guarantee Scheme by producing relevant documents. In the absence of anything to substantiate their claim, according to the respondents, the respondent no.1 reached to a bona fide conclusion that the petitioners were not entitled to unemployment allowance as per rules. On considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is clear that the respondents 4 have not disobeyed or flouted the directions issued by this Court by the judgment dated 04.06.2007 in Writ Petition No.567/2006. On the earlier occasions, the claim of the petitioners was rejected by the respondent no.1 on the ground that their applications for grant of unemployment allowance were not traceable. After the judgment dated 04.06.2007, the respondent no.1 considered the case of the petitioners after giving them a personal hearing on 04.07.2007. The claim of the petitioners was not rejected because the applications were not traceable but, was rejected as the petitioners were not able to substantiate their claim of being labourers under the Employment Guarantee Scheme by producing the relevant documents. The claim of the petitioners for unemployment allowance was not rejected for the same reasons as pointed out on behalf of the petitioners as the same was rejected in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the claim. 5 For the reasons aforesaid, the contempt proceedings against the respondents are liable to be dropped. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE