Judgment: Heard on the question of admission. 2. By filing this intra court appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 28.03.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1200/2005. 3. Having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that before the Writ Court, the appellant/writ petitioner had challenged order dated 05.07.1999 by which the petitioner's claims were rejected. 4. Learned Single Judge, after considering the petitioner’s case passed the following order:- “Since, the petitioner is a retired employee of the State Government and contesting since last long therefore the impugned order Annexure P/37 dated 05.07.1999 is hereby quashed with a direction to Collector Indore to consider the claims of the petitioner afresh and pass a reasoned order within three months and if it is found that petitioner is entitled for any amount, then the same shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of filing of copy of this order.” 5. On a bare reading of the aforesaid order, it is clear that the order, which was impugned before the Writ Court, was quashed and the direction was issued to the Collector, Indore to consider the petitioner’s claims afresh and pass a reasoned order. 6. Thereafter, in Contempt Petition No.468/2007 filed by the appellant, following order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 11.04.2008: “After hearing the petitioner on the claim made by him and also keeping in view the averment made in the petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the officer concerned, who is required to implement the directions issued by this Court earlier. In any such representation is filed by the petitioner along with a copy of the judgment, implementation whereof is sought, then the concerned officer shall comply with in letter and spirit the directions issued by the Court. Any further default committed by the concerned officer shall be taken to be a willful disobedience by the concerned officer of the directions issued by this Court and in such a situation, the concerned officer would be personally liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.” 7. Any further default committed by the concerned officer shall be taken to be a willful disobedience by the concerned officer of the directions issued by this Court and in such a situation, the concerned officer would be personally liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.” 7. Thus, it is clear that the time fixed by the Writ Court to decide the petitioner’s claims within three months stood extended by order dated 11.04.2008 passed in Contempt Petition No.468/2007. Thereafter, by order dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure A/9), the petitioner’s claims were considered by the Collector, Indore. Instead of challenging the said order or seeking implementation of the directions contained therein, the appellant/writ petitioner filed another Contempt Case No.470/2009. The said contempt petition was disposed of by learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.01.2011 by observing that if the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Collector, Indore, he is free to challenge the same by way of appropriate proceedings. Since the contempt petition was dismissed in the absence of the petitioner, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Civil Case No.140/2011, seeking restoration of the contempt petition. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.06.2011 dismissed the MCC by observing thus: “Since the petitioner was absent, therefore, SPC was also issued to the petitioner. At the time of hearing it was brought to the notice of this Court by counsel for the respondent in compliance of the order passed by this Court each and every claim of the petitioner was taken into consideration and elaborate order was passed by the Collector, Indore on 14.12.2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no justification for filing the MCC for restoration of contempt petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved with the order passed by Collector, Indore, petitioner is free to challenge the same. In view of this, petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.” 8. After the aforesaid orders being passed in two contempt petitions and in one miscellaneous civil case, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.03.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.1200/2005. 9. We have heard the appellant and the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State. Having considered the submissions made by the appellant and the learned Panel Lawyer for the State, we are of the view that no case for interference is made out. 9. We have heard the appellant and the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State. Having considered the submissions made by the appellant and the learned Panel Lawyer for the State, we are of the view that no case for interference is made out. Vide impugned order dated 28.03.2005, the order, which was challenged in the writ petition, was quashed and the Collector, Indore was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim afresh. Thereafter, a reasoned order dated 14.12.2009 was passed by the Collector, Indore. Instead of challenging the said order, if the petitioner had any grievance, he proceeded to file contempt petition. Learned Single Judge noticing that during pendency of contempt petition, the respondents have passed order dated 14.12.2009 in compliance to the order passed in Contempt Petition No.470/2009, disposed of the contempt case giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 14.12.2009 by way of appropriate proceedings. However, again instead of availing the liberty, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Civil Case No.140/2011 seeking restoration of contempt petition. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid factual background, in our considered view, no case for interference in the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is made out. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. C. c. within three days.