1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.445 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1407 OF 2008 Pravin Pandurang Shinde ..Petitioner V/s Governing Council, Dr.D.Y.Patil Prathishthan, ..Respondents Kolhapur & ors Mr.Pravin Pandurang Shinde-in-person Mr.Vineet B. Naik with Mr.Sukand R.Kulkarni, Advocate, for the respondents CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 13TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. . The above Contempt Petition is filed on the basis that the back wages deposited by the respondent No.1-management pursuant to the Order dated 24th April, 2008, passed by Justice Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud of this Court in Writ Petition No.1407 of 2008 are incorrect and have been deposited on the basis of a wrong calculation. It is the case of the petitioner that the said back wages 2 ought to have been deposited with accrued interest and that he should be allowed to withdraw the said interest in terms of the Order dated 21st July, 2008 passed by Justice P.B.Majmudar. 2. The petitioner herein is the original respondent in the Writ Petition No.1407 of 2008 filed by the respondent No.1-management challenging the order of the School Tribunal. The said Writ Petition was admitted by Order dated 24th April, 2008 passed by Justice Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud and as a conditon for the grant of interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) the respondent No.1-management was directed to deposit the back wages. 3. The petitioner thereafter applied for being permitted to withdraw the accrued interest on the amount deposited by the respondent No.1-management. The learned Judge allowed the said application to the extent of allowing the petitioner herein i.e. the respondent No.1 in the said Writ Petition to withdraw the accrued interest. 3 4. In so far as the allegation of the petitioner that the amount of the backwages deposited by the respondent No.1-management is incorrect, the petitioner has filed Civil Application bearing (ST) No.19075 of 2008 for the said purpose. In so far as the grievance of the petitioner that the backwages deposited by the respondent No.1- management ought to have been with accrued interest, looking to the Order dated 24th April, 2008, there is no such direction for depositing the amount with accrued interest and the direction is only as regards deposit of backwages. In the teeth of the said order, the said grievance of the petitioner is misconceived. 5. The petitioner in the above Contempt Petition has also prayed for various reliefs which in my view would not lie within the jurisdiction of a Contempt Court. Since the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No.1-management is as yet pending, the petitioner can file appropriate application in the said Writ Petition, if so advised. In that view of the matter no case for proceeding against respondent is made out. The above Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed. 4 (R.M.SAVANT, J.)