ORDER Heard the petitioner in person in support of the contempt petition and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank. 2. The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the order by which he was dismissed from service. The order bf dismissal was passed as a result of four proceedings which were disposed of by a common order. The order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was set aside by a Bench of this court vide judgment and order passed on 4.9.1997 in CWJC No.4030 of 1994. 3. An L.P.A. No. 1444 of 1997 was preferred by the respondents against the order passed by learned single Judge which was finally disposed of on 20.11.2006 in which relief was given to the respondents to initiate a fresh disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. However, the Division Bench did not interfere with the order of learned single Judge on merit. 4. Accordingly, in compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge the respondent-opposite party issued Annexure 'A', dated 20.11.2007 recalling the order, dated 29.3.1993 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. 5. The petitioner who has appeared in person in support of the present contempt petition contends that although the order passed in the letters patent appeal was issued on 20.11.2006, the opposite party has deliberately delayed in passing the order by which the petitioner was to be reinstated in service. The delay according to the petitioner has caused him immense loss as according to him, his wife was suffering from cancer and she died on 22.9.2007 and the petitioner feels that he could have given her better treatment if he had received financial pesources within time and as such the grievance is that due to the laches on the part of the opposite Party the petitioner has suffered mental agony. 6. In any event, I do find that there is a delay in compliance of the order of this court and the fact that the petitioner has suffered due to the delay adds to the mental agony of the petitioner. As such while I find that there is no deliberately contempt in compliance of the order of this court, at the same time due to delay which is one year, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a cost of Rs. As such while I find that there is no deliberately contempt in compliance of the order of this court, at the same time due to delay which is one year, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 1000/- to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. On the other hand the petitioner who is present in person in court is directed to join the concerned office by 14.1.2008, since he hardly has any time left in service and he is to retire in February, 2008. The Opposite Party is directed to pay the salary of the petitioner due to him as a result of recall of the order of termination, dated 29.3.1993 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. This contempt petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations.