1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3854 OF 1997. Kishanrao S/o Vithalrao Jadhav, Age 57 years, Occ.Service as a Village Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nilanga, R/o Mahadeo Galli, Ahmedpur, Taluka Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Zilla Parishad, Latur, District Latur, through its Chief Executive Officer, Latur. 3. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ahmedpur, Taluka Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nilanga, Taluka Nilanga, Dist. Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mr.Nanda Gawali, advocate holding for Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Rakh, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 05.07.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner prays for direction to pay him arrears of salary from October 1993 to January 1996 of Rs. 1,08,000/- (Rupees one lac eight thousand). The petitioner was working as Assistant Development Officer in Ahmedpur Taluka. It appears that petitioner was put under suspension by an order dated 18.8.1993. However, since inspite of suspension, the departmental inquiry has not been proceeded further, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 2225/94 in this Court. Vide order dated 19.9.1994, this Court directed the Respondent No. 2 to complete the inquiry within six (6) months from the date of the order and pay subsistence allowance as per Rules to the petitioner. The arrears if any were directed to be paid within two (2) weeks 2. The petitioner submits that though there was a specific direction from this Court and though the petitioner has made several representations, the petitioner was not paid the amount. It is submitted that only after the 3 petitioner filed a Contempt Petition and after receipt of the notice in the Contempt Petition, the Respondent had issued a cheque of Rs.26,600/- (Rupees twenty six thousand six hundred) to the petitioner and reinstated in service. In these premises, the petitioner has filed the present petition for the claim aforesaid. 3. Mr.Nanda Gawali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated and paid salary in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No. 2225/1994, the Respondents have failed in making the payment. 4. The learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad states that though instructions are sought from the Zilla Parishad, he has not received instructions. 5. The petition is filed in the year 1997. Rule is granted in 2000. For the period of last ten years, the Respondents have not filed any 4 reply. In that view of the matter, the allegations in the matter have gone uncontroverted. As such the allegations in the petition will have to be deemed to be admitted. 6. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the petition by directing the Respondent Zilla Parishad to make payment of the subsistence allowance to which he entitled during the period of suspension and the arrears of payment from the date on which he was reinstated till the date he was not paid the salary, to which he is entitled for. The said payment shall be made within three (3) months from today alongwith interest at the rate of Rs.6% p.a. Rule made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp385497 5