FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | CONTEMPT PETITION NO.333/2009 Shri K.S.Patil,AGP for State. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 25/11/2009. 1] Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2] The complaint in the instant petition is about wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 22/10/08 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2044/07. The relevant portion of which is contained in para 8 of the order, which is reproduced as under: "8. In that view of the matter, the petition is partly allowed. The respondents to pay an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs by way of a crossed demand draft drawn in favour of the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from today. It is made clear that the said amount is towards all the dues that the respondent is liable to pay to the petitioner and the petitioner will not have any claim towards the past salary of the back wages etc. In view of the undertaking filed by the petitioner, Writ Petition No. 4749/2001 and Criminal Revision Application No.85/2007 shall also stand disposed of as withdrawn." 3] The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice a communication dated 25/12/2008 issued by respondents forwarding the amount after deducting Rs. 56,650/- towards T.D.S. and a reference is made to the certificate dated 16/12/2008. The learned counsel submits that the respondents have deducted an amount of Rs.56,650/-from the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs, which was payable to the petitioner in terms of para 8 of the judgment reproduced above. He laid the stress on the sentence which runs as under : "It is made clear that the said amount is towards all the dues that the respondent is liable to pay to the petitioner and the petitiner will not have any claim towards the past salary or the backwages etc." 4] According to the learned counsel, he has waived the claim for other backwages and therefore, the respondents should not have deducted and amount of Rs.56,650/-. This according to the learned counsel for the petitioner amounts to wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 5] After going through the contents of para 8 of the said order, it is apparent that there is no order prohibiting the respondent from deducting the tax at source. The entitlement of the petitioner to an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs is not in any way reduced but deduction is towards payment of tax at source. In the absence of there being any such directions in the judgment prohibiting respondents from deducting the tax at source, in my opinion, there is no question of any contempt or wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 6] In the result, there is no substance in the contempt petition. The same is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the petitioner is entitled to seek any clarification, if he so desires in respect of aforesaid directions from the writ Court. (R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) umg/cp333­09