THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.C. No. 1392 of 2009 Oral order: Alleging that the respondents have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders dated 06.11.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 22935 of 2006, the petitioner filed this contempt case praying to punish the respondents for contempt. The petitioner earlier complaining non-compliance of the very same order filed contempt case in C.C. No.1500 of 2008, and based on the submission made that the order has been complied with, this Court by order dated 16.12.2008 closed the contempt case. The petitioner filed the main writ petition in W.P. No. 22935 of 2006 questioning the order dated 26.07.1999 passed by the respondents imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect. This Court, by order dated 06.11.2006, following the judgment of the apex Court in Kulwanth Singh Gill v. State of Punjab[1] modified the punishment to that of stoppage of one increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. Now the petitioner complaining that the respondents have not implemented the order, filed the present contempt case. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of this Court has been complied with, and to evidence that the order has been complied with, she produced copy of the proceedings No. P1/255(1)/2000 TML, dated 20.04.2009 of the Depot Manager, dated 20.04.2009. A perusal of the above proceedings would disclose that the punishment imposed against the petitioner by the respondents, as modified by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2006 passed in W.P. No.22935 of 2006 was modified as without cumulative effect, w.e.f. 26.07.1999. In view of the above, no contempt, much less willful contempt of the orders of this Court can be alleged against the respondents. Hence the contempt case is closed. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner once again filed another writ petition for the very same relief. If that be so, the respondents are at liberty to bring to make a mention before the Court concerned, about the granting of the relief, and dismissal of the contempt case. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 27.11.2009 KSR [1] 1990 (1) LLJ 635