1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 418 OF 2009 Shri Pravin Pandurang Shinde ... Petitioner Vs. Governing Council, Dr. D.Y.Patil Pratishthan, Kolhapur & Ors. Respondents Mr. P.P.Shinde – petitioner in person present in Court. Mr. Sukand R. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the respondents Nos. 1 & 2. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar,AGP, for respondent No.3. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 15th April, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the petitioner in person and the learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. According to the petitioner, he was in the employment of the respondent in Polytechnic No.101 and his services were terminated. That order was challenged in Appeal No.82/1996 before the School Tribunal wherein the School Tribunal directed the respondents to reinstate him in service by order dated 31.3.2000. That order has been complied with and on 10.7.2000, the petitioner 2 reported for duty and was reinstated. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No.9/2000 seeking 18% compound interest with retrospective effect on the back wages which were to be paid as per the directions of the School Tribunal. That appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed Misc. Appeal No.40/2003. That appeal was also dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, he filed Misc. Appeal No.41/2003 for contempt of the order dated 31.3.2000. However, that appeal was withdrawn by him on 20.1.2004. It appears that after the reinstatement, the management dismissed him from service again and that order was set aside by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.2/2004 with a direction for reinstatement and payment of wages. That order was challenged by the management in Writ Petition No.1407 of 2008. In that petition, on 24.4.2008, the management was directed by Mr. Justrice Chandrachud to deposit the back wages and the amount of Rs. 11,52,083/- has been deposited in May 2008. Thereafter the petitioner prayed for permission to withdraw the said amount. That was allowed and he has withdrawn the amount. The petitioner thereafter filed Contempt Petition No.445 of 2008 contending that the accrued interest on the amount was not paid. That petition came to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application in the said Writ Petition. The present Contempt Petition is filed alleging that various orders about reinstatement and payments are not being complied with. 3 3. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to interest at a particular rate which has not been paid to him. As pointed out in the order dated 13.1.2009 in Contempt Petition No.445 of 2008, this Court has given liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application in the Writ Petition seeking relief which he wants. If the payment has not been properly made or calculation of interest has not been properly made in such application, the Court can pass appropriate order determining the actual amount to be paid on calculation of interest at particular rate. That cannot be done in Contempt Petition. 4. Taking into consideration these circumstances, I do not find any substance in the Contempt Petition. Therefore, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)