1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 255 OF 2009 Mahadeo Vishnupant Jaybhaye, R/o. Datta Nagar, K.S.K. College Road, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai & others ....Respondents. Shri. D.J. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the respondent No. 1. Shri. H.V. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 4 & 6. Shri. R.D. Sanap, Advocate for respondent No. 5. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 2nd December, 2009 PER COURT : 1. This petition complains willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 13th of February 2009, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5096/2007. The relevant portion of the said judgment contained in para 4, is reproduced below :- 2 4. In respect of the ingenious contention which is raised by the respondents that the petitioner had agreed to work without salary, there is nothing on record which will remotely demonstrate as such. Mr.Choudhari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner states that the petitioner would restrict the claim of arrears of salary w.e.f. 13.9.2004 to only which is without prejudice to the 30.4.2007 contentions of the petitioner that the petitioner had worked upto 18.6.2007. Since undisputedly salary has not been paid to the petitioner, we allow this petition and direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary from 13.9.2004 to 30.4.2007 as per the scale of salary which was prevalent then. The arrears of salary to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent - Management within four (4) months from today. On failure of the respondent - Management to pay the arrears of salary within four (4) months from today, the amount of arrears of salary shall be liable to be paid to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date on which the salary became due till it is actually received by the petitioner. " By the aforesaid order, the respondents were directed to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner from 13.9.2004 to 30.4.2007 as per the scale of salary which was prevalent then. However, this was not paid, therefore, the present contempt petition has been filed. 2. Notice in this contempt petition was issued on 13.8.2009. In response to the notice Shri. H.V. Patil appeares for respondent Nos. 4 and 6 and has filed two separate affidavits. Shri. Sanap appears for respondent No. 5 and has also filed separate affidavit. All these affidavits are taken on record. According to the respondents, the total arrears of 3 salary of the petitioner for the period from 13.9.2004 to 30.4.2007 comes to Rs. 3,09,740/-. Accordingly, cheque for the said amount has been tendered to the petitioner, who is present in person before this Court. The petitioner has acknowledged the receipt of the same. The respondent Nos. 4 and 6 are present in this Court, who have signed the cheque. Shri. Patil, on instructions from the respondent Nos. 4 and 6, makes a statement that the said cheque will be honoured. 3. Shri. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, disputed the figure of Rs. 3,09,740/-. According to him, the amount comes to Rs. 3,34,938/-. Shri. Choudhari states that such deductions are not at all warranted. Without going into this disputed position, I am satisfied that the order has been complied with, when the respondents have tendered a cheque of Rs. 3,09,740/- with assurance that the same shall be honoured. If the petitioner has any grievance in respect of the deductions made from the amount payable to him, then it shall be open for the petitioner to take recourse through such appropriate proceedings, as are permissible in law. 4. Shri. Choudhari has further made a grievance that this Court had directed payment of interest at the rate of 10% p.a., if the amount is not paid within a period of four months from the date of order. The period of four months, according to the him, expired on 30.6.2009 and therefore, the interest is due and payable by the respondents to the petitioner for 4 the period from 13.2.2009 i.e. from the date of the order passed by this Court till today i.e. 2nd of December 2009. In respect of the amount of interest, the petitioner is at liberty to take such appropriate proceedings as are permissible in law. 5. In view of the aforesaid position, I do not find any reason to proceed with the instant contempt petition as the respondents have tendered their unconditional apology before this Court as contained in their affidavit. However, none of the observations made by this Court in this order shall come in the way of the parties to prosecute their remedies for recovery of amount. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp255.09