Judgment :- The above contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying the order of this Court, dated 13. 2002, made in W.P.No.16187 of 1998. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.16187 of 1998, for quashing the order, dated 26. 1997, relating to his suspension and for the payment of full monetary benefits for the period during which he was under suspension. 3. This Court had passed an order, on 13. 2002, by which certain directions had been issued. Paragraph 27 of the said order reads as follows: "27. The petitioner is not only justified in becoming entitled to the relief sought for in its entirety but also for an exemplary cost on account of the deliberate wrong proceeding initiated against him thus causing not only physical and monetary loss and hardship but also mental agony and affliction coupled with humiliation and loss of reputation in the Society and at the work spot. Hence, the following orders: In result, (i) the above Writ Petition succeeds and the same is allowed with an exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) payable by all the respondents to the petitioner within thirty days from the date of the copy of this order is made ready. (ii) The order of the third respondent bearing No.CZV:DPC:193:97, dated 26. 1997 and of the second respondent relating to his order dated 10. 1997 thus rejecting the appeal of the petitioner are hereby quashed. (iii) The first respondent is directed to pay the petitioner his full pay and allowances for the period of his suspension by treating the said period as one on duty and also to pay the petitioner his full wages for the month of June, 1997 and his retirement dues in full." 4. It was submitted that in spite of the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 13. 2002, in W.P.No.16187 of 1998, the respondents therein had not complied with the said order. 5. It was submitted that in spite of the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 13. 2002, in W.P.No.16187 of 1998, the respondents therein had not complied with the said order. 5. At the time of the hearing of the contempt petition, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that even before the present contempt petition had been filed before this Court, a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.3696 of 2002, had been filed before the First Bench of this Court and an order of interim stay had been granted, on 12. 2002, in W.A.M.P.No.6180 of 2002 in W.A.No.3696 of 2002. Thereafter, the said Writ Appeal had been allowed by the First Bench of this Court, on 23. 2005, by setting aside the order, dated 13. 2002 made in W.P.No.16187 of 1998. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had not refuted the claims made on behalf of the respondents. 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no case has been made out by the petitioner to punish the respondents for contempt of Court as prayed for by the petitioner. Hence, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs.