ORDER : 1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner for the alleged breach of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22/1/2014 in WP Nos.85372-85380/2013, between H.M. Shambulingayya and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others. 2. The learned counsel for the Government has brought to the notice that in similar matter, the State has preferred writ appeals against the similar order passed by the learned Single Judge and vide order dated 27/11/2015 in WA No.2476/2015 and the Hon’ble Division Bench has granted the stay in favour of the appellant-State. 3. He further submitted that the State has decided to file a writ appeal even against the present order of the learned Single Judge dated 22/1/2014 and there is no deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondent-State and therefore, the present contempt petition can be dismissed at this stage. 4. The Division Bench order dated 27/11/2015 in another similar case, in WA No.24786 is quoted below for ready reference:- “Writ Appeal No.2476 of 2015 and Writ Appeal Nos.3600 to 4195 of 2015 are the appeals against the judgment and order dated July 10, 2015, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in relation to a batch of writ petitions pertaining to Dharwad Bench of this Court. Learned Advocates appearing for the respondents submits that, to avoid conflicting judicial opinion, these appeals could be heard along with Writ Appeal Nol.2467 of 2015 and Writ Appeal Nos.2714 to 3455 of 2015. Writ Appeal No.2467 of 2015 and other appeals pertain to the Principal Bench. It is suggested by the learned advocates that let all the matters be considered by the Principal Bench of this Court. We accept the prayer and decide to hear all the appeals together. Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay in Writ Appeal No.2476/2015. Issue notice on the non-appearing respondents in Writ Appeal No.2467 of 2015. Insofar as the in-service respondents are concerned, we record the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall go on paying their current emoluments in terms of the re-fixation, subject, however, to the result of the writ appeals. However, they are restrained from initiating any recovery proceedings for recovery of the arrears of pay. So far as the retired employees are concerned learned Advocate General submits that the pension they are getting shall be continued to be paid to them. However, they are restrained from initiating any recovery proceedings for recovery of the arrears of pay. So far as the retired employees are concerned learned Advocate General submits that the pension they are getting shall be continued to be paid to them. He submits that in some cases the pensions are based on the old scales and in some cases after re-fixation. The State shall be paying the pension as are paid to those retired employees as of today. So far as recovery proceedings and calculation of the pension in terms of the new regulation are concerned, the proceedings shall, however, remain stayed”. 5. In view of the aforesaid position, we are satisfied that, at this stage, that no contempt can be said to have been committed by the respondents in the present case when the matter is said to be pending before the Division Bench of this Court and the contempt petition filed by the petitioner is therefore dismissed at this stage. Notices are discharged.