ORDER 1. This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order passed by a coordiante Bench of this Court in WA 290/18 on 20.4.2018. The operative portion of the said order for ready reference and convenience is reproduced below:- “In view of the foregoing discussion, relying upon the Full Bench decision in the case of Ashutosh Pawar v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Writ Petition No.5865/2016 Order dated 12.1.2018) and also the Division Bench decision in the case of Bhupendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.A. No.46/2018 decided on 24.1.2018), in our considered opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 1.2.2018 passed in W.P. No.6316/2016 deserves to be and is hereby set aside and the matter is relegated to the competent authority to pass a fresh order after considering the case of the appellant afresh in the light of the observation made hereinabove. With the aforesaid observation, this writ appeal stands disposed of. “ 2. Respondents have filed reply revealing that petitioner has been appointed as “Subedar” in police and thus the aforeaid direction stands complied with. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the order of appointment has been issued as revealed by the respondents but with much delay and petitioner pursuant to the said order of appointment has not been permitted to join. 4. This Court is affraid that no separate order can be passed while exercising contempt jurisdiction where this Court merely is concerned with punishing the respondents in case of deliberate non-compliance of its directions. 5. In the present case, compliance has though been made but with considerable delay of about two and a half years and therefore, petitioner is entitled to the cost of this avoidable peice of litigation which petitioner was compelled to initiate and prosecute for reasons solely attributed to the respondents. 6. Consequently, petitioner is entitled to the litigation cost of Rs.5000/- which shall be deposited in the bank account of petitioner by the respondents within a month from today and report in that regard be filed before the Registry of this Court. Prashant Sharma for petitioner; F.A. Shah for respondent No.1