1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners' Writ Petition No.29711 (S/S) of 2018 was disposed of by the writ-Court by means of judgment and order dated 10.10.2018, which, on reproduction, reads as under:-
" Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
In regard to the grievances raised in the present writ petition, petitioner has represented his claim before the respondent no.2, vide representation dated 15.02.2018.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 has no objection, in case, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.2 to consider and pass appropriate order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.2 to consider the grievances of the petitioner raised by means of the representation dated 15.02.2018 and to pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him."
3. Thus, only direction for respondent was to consider grievance of the petitioner raised through representation dated 15.02.2018 and pass appropriate, reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
4. Pursuant to issuance of contempt notice, an affidavit of compliance of Dr. Arvind Kumar Chaurasia,, Managing Director, Pradeshik Cooperative Federation Limited has been filed, which is on record.
Along with the aforesaid compliance affidavit, copy of order dated 29.06.2019, taken on the representation of the petitioner, has been placed on record as Annexure-2. It has been said that in respect of the claim of the petitioner to refund amount of Rs.4,04,008/-, which was deducted from his retiral dues, a Committee was constituted. The Committee has opined that the said amount cannot be refunded to the petitioner.
5. In view of the aforesaid decision dated 29.06.2019, nothing survives in this contempt petition, which is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
Contempt notice stands discharged.
However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, it would be open to him to challenge the decision dated 29.06.2019, taken on his representation, before the competent Court/Forum, if he is so advised and law permits.
[Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.] Date :- 28.8.2019MVS/-