CA 13832/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13832/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 533/1992 Neminath s/o Nanaji Lonkar, Age : 48 years, Occu. Service, R/o Flat No.A-3, Sarita Apartment, Jyotinagar, Aurangabad. ..Applicant. Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra and others. ...Respondents. Mr. D.R. Jayabhar, for the applicant. Mr. G.R. Ingole, A.G.P. for respondent No.1/State. Mr. R.L. Kute, for respondent No.2 absent. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE : 16th March,2011 ORDER: 1 The applicant is original petitioner in writ petition No. 533/1992 which was filed seeking certain directions to the respondents. After hearing the parties, the Court directed respondents No.2 and 3 on 14th January, 1993 to deposit Rs.36,800/- in the court. This amount represented arrears of salary of the petitioner. The order that was passed by Division Bench of this Court reads as under. “.....Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to deposit an amount of Rs.36,800/- in this Court within two months from today. On such deposit being made, the Petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw half the amount on furnishing security.” CA 13832/2010 2 2 Despite of the directions, the respondents did not deposit the amount and so the petitioner filed contempt petition being petition No. 67/1993. This Court on the said petition passed certain order on 09/07/1993. The terminal part of the same reads as under. “Ultimately, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 personally appeared before this Court and have remitted Rs. 36,800/- in cash today. This amount is directed by this Court. There is no dispute that the amount consists of back wages of the petitioner from April 1, 1990, upto the date of reinstatement. In this situation, the petitioner would be entitled to this amount. We accordingly direct the Additional Registrar of this Court to pay this amount of Rs.36,800/- to the petitioner – Neminath Lonkar by a cross-order account payee cheque. We are aware that as per the order of this Court, only half of the amount is permitted to be withdrawn on furnishing security. The petitioner is a poor person. He is entitled to the amount as arrears of salary. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have not obeyed the directions of this Court in the writ petition. However, we accept the apology tendered unconditionally and drop the present contempt proceedings.” 3 In view of the order, respondents No. 2 and 3 deposited the said amount in the Court on 09/07/1993. However, unfortunately it seems, the petitioner did not realise the purport of the order and still thought that he was required to furnish security for withdrawing 50% of the amount. He, in our view, erroneously, filed a civil application No. 3154/1993 for getting exemption from furnishing security. On this application, the Court passed following order. “......Rs.36,800/- be invested by the Additional Registrar in the Bank of Maharashtra, Kranti Chowk Branch, Aurangabad, in F.D.R. giving quarterly interests and the amount of interest be paid to the petitioner as and when CA 13832/2010 3 it accrues, till the decision of this Petition..” 4 Accordingly, from 23/12/1993 the amount of Rs.36,800/- was lying in a fixed deposit with a nationalised Bank and quarterly interest accrued on the same is being given to the petitioner. In this back ground, one must appreciate the petitioner’s present application. He is seeking directions to withdraw entire amount of Rs.36,800/-. 5 Despite of the order passed by this Court on 09/07/1993, the respondents opposed the application. They said that the petitioner is not entitled to the amount because he had not attended the duty for which he had been claiming the arrears of salary. They pointed out that the petitioner had filed the writ petition (No.533/1992) against certain order of the School Tribunal dismissing his appeal. They further pointed out that the petitioner ultimately withdrew the writ petition with a liberty to file appeal before the competent authority. They further pointed out that the petitioner did not file any appeal. They thus tried to suggest that the petitioner had ultimately failed to establish his claim for the amount of Rs.36,800/-, which he claimed to be the arrears of his salary. This submission looks attractive but it is in vain. Whatever might have happened ultimately in the writ petition No. 533/1992, at interim stage, the respondents were directed to deposit the amount of Rs.36,800/-. Admittedly, this amount was not deposited despite such direction. It is only after the petition seeking action under Contempt of Court Act was filed against the respondents, they in order to purge the contempt, had deposited the amount. The circumstances in which they had deposited the amount in the Court is clearly depicted in the order of this Court dated 09/07/1993. Had they not deposited the amount on that day, they would not have succeeded CA 13832/2010 4 in purging the contempt which was held to have been committed by them. It is only because they deposited the amount, the Court accepted their unconditional apology and dropped the action. It is thus clear that the act of the respondents depositing the amount of Rs. 36,800/-, no longer remained only a compliance of the earlier order of this Court dated 14/01/1993. The order dated 09/07/1993 further impliedly relaxed the earlier condition of furnishing security for withdrawing only 50% of the amount. This time, the Court offered to hand over the entire amount to the petitioner. The Court clearly recorded as to why such a concession was given to the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner was a poor person and was entitled to the amount as arrears of salary. Recording this reason the court issued fresh directions to the Additional Registrar to pay the entire amount to the petitioner. We get a clear picture that on 09/07/1993 itself this amount was directed to be handed over to the petitioner unconditionally. So, the petitioner had no reason to file the civil application No. 3154/1993. In view of this, we find no reason to keep the amount with us. ORDER a) The application is allowed. b) The entire amount of Rs.36,800/- shall be handed over to the petitioner forthwith. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] ts k/2011/march16/ca13832.10/ok