: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 9 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2227 OF 2006 Shri. Tanaji Appasaheb Waghmare ....Petitioner Versus The President, ShikshanPrasarak Sanstha Kavathemahankal Dist.Sangli and Ors. ......Respondents ----------- Shri.P.D.Pise, adv.for petitioner. Shri. G.S. Godbole i/by Mr.Umesh Mankapure, adv.for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr.J.M.Patel, adv. for respondent no.3. Coram : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J Dated: 30 th July, 2008. P.C : 1. The petitioner was employed as a full time lecturer on the reserved post of permanent vacancy in the college run by respondents no.1 and 2 for the academic year 1995-96. After his reappointment for one more year, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 19th April, 1997. The order of termination came to be challenged by him by filing an appeal before the School Tribunal, Kolhapur. The Tribunal by its order dated 31st January, 2006 allowed the appeal and directed respondents no.1 and 2 to reinstate the : 2 : petitioner, pay full backwages and other incidental benefits such as continuity of service increment, difference in pay etc. Respondents no.1 and 2 challenged the order by filing Writ Petition NO. 2227 of 2006 in this court. That petition was disposed off by the order dated 14th February, 2007. Respondent no.3, namely Sarjerao Krishna Jadhav to the present petition is the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur. He was respondent no.3 to the appeal before the School Tribunal and also to the Writ Petition filed by respondents no.1 and 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner and respondents no.1 and 2 arrived at a settlement and the writ petition came to be disposed off in terms of the settlement. Respondent no.3 had never challenged the order passed by the School Tribunal a nd as such was bound to comply with that order. This responsibility of respondent no.3 of compliance of the order remained undisturbed by the order passed in the writ petition. 2. As per the consent terms arrived at between the petitioner and respondents no.1 and 2, the petitioner was to be reinstated in service with effect from 1st February, 2006 with salary and the dues from that day within a period of two weeks”. As regards the backwages, Respondents no.1 and 2 were to forward the bill for salary of the petitioner from the date of termination till 31st March, 2006 within a period of two weeks to the Education Officer. Thereafter, the Education Officer was to consider the bill : 3 : and take suitable action. It is admitted in the consent terms, that respondents no.1 and 2 had not appointed any person in the place of the petitioner, since the date of his termination from service. As such, there was no difficulty in reinstating the petitioner in a vacant post, and also for payment of backwages through the salary grant to be released by respondent no.3. 3. Since, the respondents did not comply with the order of the School Tribunal, modified by the order in the writ petition, the petitioner was constrained to file the instant Contempt Petition for taking action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the courts' order. 4. During the hearing of that petition, it is revealed that respondents no.1 and 2 reinstated the petitioner within two weeks as per the consent terms. They also sent the bill for salary in respect of the petitioner to respondent no.3. Therefore in the petition, there is no serious complaint as regards respondents no.1 and 2. Respondent no.3 however, even after receiving the bill for salary of the petitioner, sat over it for a long time without taking any action. Instead, he sent letters raising untenable objections to the bills. Consequently, despite the order of the School Tribunal of 30th January, 2006 the petitioner has remained without salary till date. During the course of the submission in the contempt petition, Mr.Patel, Additional Government Pleader : 4 : made a statement that respondent no.3 has by his order dated 11th July, 2008 has given approval for reinstatement and continuity in service of the applicant. But the issue of payment of salary by releasing the salary grant was kept pending. It was necessary for respondent no.3 to release the salary grant inrespect of the petitioner as soon as the bill therefrom was sent by respondent nos.1 and 2. Since this was not done, direction was required to be given to respondent no.3 by order dated 29th July, 2008 to deposit the amount payable by way of backwages for the period 1997-98 and 2005-06 and the salary payable to him since the date of his reinstatement on 1st April, 2006. 5. Respondent no.3 has now filed a second additional affidavit stating that since the date of passing of the order, he has received the bill upto date for backwages and salary of the petitioner from respondents no.1 and 2. As per the bills, the total amount payable to the petitioner comes to about Rs.17,15,599/-. After deducting professional taxes of Rs.24,380/-, respondent no.3 has deposited a sum of Rs.16,91,290/- by way of Demand Draft with the Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai on 28th July, 2008. 6. Mr.Godbole, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 submits that out of the salary amount due to the petitioner, an amount to the extent of 8% is required to be deducted and handed over to respondents no.1 and 2 by way of : 5 : contribution to the Provident Fund Account. The amount to be deducted being 8% of the salary due towards Provident Fund, would be Rs.1,35,297/-. The petitioner does not dispute the quantum of this amount and the payment towards the provident fund liability by respondents no.1 and 2. The respondents nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,35,297/- out of the amount deposited by respondent no.3 with the court. 7. After deducting the amount to the extent of 8%, the amount payable to the petitioner would be of Rs.15,55,922/-. Mr.Godbole, next points out that respondents no.1 and 2 are liable to deduct the income-tax at source from the salary payable to the petitioner. However, in the instant case since the petitioner is receiving the arrears of his salary in lumpsum over a long period of time, respondents no.1 and 2 have no objection if the income-tax thereof is paid by the petitioner directly. Mr.Pise, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner takes the responsibility of payment of income-tax on the arrears of salary received by him. Since the salary is being received in lumpsum, he submits that the petitioner may face some prejudice as regards the payment of income-tax. Section 89 of Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for the relief when salary etc. is paid in arrears or in advance. The concerned Rule therefore is Rule 21A of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962. The petitioner is at liberty to make a suitable application to the Income-Tax authorities : 6 : requesting for relief under Section 89 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 21A of Income Tax Rules, 1962. Since the primary liability of deduction of income-tax at source was of respondents no.1 and 2, the petitioner is directed to inform the respondents no.1 and 2 about the payment of income- tax on the arrears of salary received by him within a period of one week from the date of payment of income-tax. 8. The petitioner, Tanaji Waghmare states that at the time of reinstatement in the service, respondents no.1 and 2 had asked him to make an affidavit stating that on receipt of arrears of salary he would deposit in cash a sum of Rs.1,35,297/- towards the contribution towards provident fund and Rs.5,07,366/- towards income-tax to be deducted at source with respondents no.1 and 2. Mr.Godbole, states in fairness that since the petitioner has taken the responsibility of payment of income tax directly to the income-tax authorities, respondent nos.1 and 2 will not be insisting for payment as under the affidavit dated 24th July, 2008. 9. This brings me to the question of action to be taken against the respondents who are facing the charge of contempt. There is no lapse or lethargy seen on the part of respondents no.1 and 2. Immediately after passing of the order by the School Tribunal, they challenged the legality of the : 7 : same by filing writ petition. After the Writ Petition was disposed off, they reinstated the petitioner within the period agreed under the consent terms. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to hold that they have committed contempt of the court. However, the same cannot be said of respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 to the contempt Petition, Mr.Sarjerao Jadhav has been Deputy Director of Education, since the time of the order by the School Tribunal. He has been in the know of the entire proceedings. He was also a party to the writ petition filed by respondent nos.1 and 2. Even after filing of the instant contempt petition, he showed no interest in complying with the judicial orders, instead he has delayed the compliance by raising untenable objections as regards the bills sent by respondents no.1 and 2. It cannot be lost sight off that respondent no.3 is a government servant holding responsible post of Deputy Director of Education. The response of any government servant to judicial orders of any court must be of either immediate compliance thereof or challenging the order if he considers the same to be unjust or improper. Respondent no.3 did not act with responsibility in the instant case. However, considering the position that he is a government servant and further considering the position that after the direction dated 29th July, 2008 he has moved with sufficient speed and deposited the amount of salary in the court, I am not inclined to take any action for contempt at instance. However, respondent no.3 will have to pay costs quantified at : 8 : Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner within a period of one week. 10. In the above circumstances, the Contempt Petition is disposed off with the following directions :- . The respondents no.1 and 2 are at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,35,297/- out of the amount deposited by respondent no.3 with the court. The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the balance amount of Rs.15,55,922/- . The petitioner shall pay the income-tax on the amount and inform respondents no.1 and 2 within a period of one week from the date of payment of income- tax. Respondent no.3 shall pay costs of the petition quantified at Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner within a period of one week from the receipt of the order. The other respondents to bear their own costs. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J]