JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - Contempt of the order dated 28.7.2016 in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 9314/2016 is alleged in this petition. The said writ petition was disposed of at the outset on the request of the counsel for the petitioner himself seeking liberty of the court to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Prahlad Singh vs. The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14748/2014 and connected matters decided on 28.9.2015. The respondents on their part were put to the obligation by the court to consider the representation so made and as to whether the case of Prahlad Singh vs. The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (supra) attracted to the petitioner's case. 2. Admittedly the petitioner's representation pursuant to the liberty under the court's order dated 28.7.2016 has not yet been decided. 3. Mr. Vinayak Joshi, counsel for the respondents however submitted that certain payments of retiral benefits to the petitioner have been made. He submitted that other aspects of the petitioner's case as to amount due on his superannuation are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Kamal Kant Mishra vs. Shri Rajesh Yadav & Anr. - S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 821/2016; decided on 23.3.2018. 4. At one stage Mr. R.B. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents having failed to decide the representation within 3 months of the order dated 28.7.2016 as directed, are by that very inaction/oversight in contempt of the court's order. Mr. R.B. Sharma, however admits that the petitioner has been paid part of his retiral benefits but not the whole. 5. Mr. Vinayak Joshi appearing for the petitioner submitted that if a formal decision on the petitioner's representation is to be taken, it shall be so taken within 2 weeks inter-alia detailing the fact of this very court directing that the retiral and other dues of superannuating employees be paid on priority determined with reference to the date of their superannuation. 6. At this stage, Mr. R.B. Sharma counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contempt petition be disposed of in terms of the order dated 23.3.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 821/2016 titled Kamal Kant Mishra vs. Shri Rajesh Yadav & Anr. 7. 6. At this stage, Mr. R.B. Sharma counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contempt petition be disposed of in terms of the order dated 23.3.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 821/2016 titled Kamal Kant Mishra vs. Shri Rajesh Yadav & Anr. 7. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, it is apparent that admittedly certain amounts towards retiral and other dues have been paid to the petitioner. Thus, no intent to deny the petitioner's right is apparent for the mere reason of a decision on the representation submitted pursuant to the order of this Court not having yet been made. The bonafides of the respondents cannot be doubted and willful disobedience of the court's direction is not intended. 8. I would in the circumstances, as prayed by Mr. R.B. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner, dispose of this contempt petition in terms of the order dated 23.3.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 821/2016 - Kamal Kant Mishra vs. Shri Rajesh Yadav & Anr. (supra). The observation/direction of this Court in the aforesaid judgment of Kamal Kant Mishra (supra) shall apply mutatis mutdandis to the case of the petitioner. Notices stand discharged.