FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.266 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4429 OF 2009. ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order passed by the learned Division Bench in Writ Petition No.4429 of 2009 on 13th April, 2010. The learned Division Bench observed in paragraph 4 of the said order, thus: "4 ....... The petitioner would thereafter complete all the formalities and the respondent-management agrees to then forward the proposal of the petitioner accompanied by no objection certificate from the Secretary of the Institution to the Education Officer." 2 It is not in dispute that after completing the formalities by the petitioner, the proposal of the petitioner accompanied by no objection certificate from the Secretary of the educational institution was forwarded. It is also not in dispute that after completing all the formalities, the said proposal was forwarded by the respondent management. It is also not in dispute that the Education Officer had also forwarded the proposal to the Accountant General, Nagpur and in turn, Accountant General, Nagpur has decided the said proposal. 3 One Mr. Namdeo Pundlikrao Sonwane, working as Superintendent, Pay and P.P.F. Unit, Secondary, Latur has filed affidavit-in-reply. In paragraph 6 of the said affidavit a statement is made that the pensionary benefits have been issued vide PR-5/ 10010048062/4/P/10/60041117 dated 9th September, 2010 by urgent speed post No.80, 81, 82 dated 9.9.2010. The learned A.G.P. has also invited my attention to annexures to the affidavit and submitted that in due regard to the order passed by the Division Bench, pensionary benefits have been granted to the petitioner herein. 4 Further grievance is made that the Education Officer is not releasing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner and insisting for no objection certificate from the management. The petitioner may be right in contending that the Education Officer should not have insisted for no objection certificate from the management. However, from the perusal of the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 13th April, 2010, it appears that the said point was not for consideration of the Division Bench. This Court has limitations under Contempt Jurisdiction to entertain said prayer or contention over and above the order of which disobedience is alleged in the contempt petition. 5 In the light of above and in view of the fact that pensionary benefits are already granted to the petitioner and to that effect, affidavit has been filed on record, nothing survives for consideration in this contempt petition. The contempt petition is dismissed. Notice stands discharged. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any subsequent order of the respondents, liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedy as available in law. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) 07.10.2010. PLK/*