1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.209 of 2010 In Writ Petition No.3401 of 2008 (P) (Dhananjay s/o Gajananrao Gudadhe and another v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri D.M. Kale, AGP for Respondents. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 16 th November, 2010 This contempt petition complains about willful disobedience/breach of the order dated 24-7-2009 passed by this Court. The said order is reproduced below : “ Heard Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the petitioners. It is the contention of the learned counsel that by extending the benefit of pension scheme only from 1.11.2005, there is discrimination because staff similarly situated but working in Colleges under the Education Department is getting said benefit from the earlier date. Hence, Rule. Hearing expedited. If the petitioners avail of the benefit of Pension 2 Scheme called “Defined Contribution” Pension Scheme from 1.11.2005, same shall be without prejudice to their rights in present writ petition. Smt. Joshi, learned AGP waives notice for respondents No.1 to 5.” The contention of Shri Kshirsagar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that the petitioners had submitted the applications dated 2-2-2010 and 12-4-2010 to the State Government. However, the answer of the State Government is that the petitioners cannot be granted the said benefit on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 31-10-2005. Hence, according to him, this amounts to willful disobedience/breach of the order passed by this Court. This Court has observed that if the petitioners avail of the benefit of Pension Scheme called “Defined Contribution” Pension Scheme from 1.11.2005, the same shall be without prejudice to their rights in the writ petition. However, there is no direction given by this Court to the respondents to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioners. Shri Kshirsagar, the learned counsel, submits that this Court, by way of interim order, has given right to the petitioners to avail of the benefit of the pension scheme, but the same is not granted by the State Government. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in K.A. Ansari and another v. Indian Airlines Limited, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 164. I have gone through the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The 3 direction issued by this Court in no manner confers a right upon the petitioners to avail of the benefit of the pension scheme. This Court has merely left it to the discretion of the petitioners to apply for availing of the benefit of the pension scheme without prejudice to their rights in the writ petition. The judgment relied upon merely holds that the difficulty in implementation of an order passed by the court, howsoever grave its effect may be, is no answer for its non-implementation. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that there is no direction given by this Court to the State Government to grant pensionary benefit to the petitioners. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the Government Resolution dated 31-10-2005 or by the decision of the Government, it is open for them to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. However, there is no question of any contempt. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl