THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C.NO.1607 OF 2010 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Complaining that the respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, has violated the orders of this court dated 19.6.2009 in W.P.No.3967/2003, the workman filed the present contempt case. 3. The petitioner was working as Man Mazdoor in the respondent – Corporation and consequent upon his termination, he raised I.D.No.70/1993 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur and the same was allowed on 11.10.1996 with a direction to the respondent – Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and for payment of compensation of Rs.2,000/- in lieu of back wages. As the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services on par with his juniors, was rejected, he filed the present writ petition in W.P.No.3967/2003. This court by order dated 19.6.2009, while disposing of the writ petition passed the following direction: “5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularization with effect from the date of award i.e., 11.10.1996 passed in I.D.No.70 of 1993.” 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this court directed the respondent – Corporation to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of the award in I.D.No.70/1993 dated 11.10.1996. She submitted that though the salary and other benefits were fixed and other terminal benefits were paid taking the date as 11.10.1996, but the arrears of salary between the period from 11.10.1996 to 10.7.1999, on which the petitioner was reinstated as per the award of the Tribunal, were not paid. Therefore, the leaned counsel contended that the respondent – Corporation is liable for contempt. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation Smt. W.V.S.Rajeshwari submitted that there is no specific direction from this court to pay back wages and in the award dated 11.10.1996 compensation of Rs.2,000/- was awarded in lieu of back wages and hence as there is no specific direction to pay arrears of salary, the petitioner is not entitled for the said amount and the Corporation has not flouted the orders of this court and, therefore, the contempt case may be dismissed. 6. From a perusal of the operative portion of the order of this court extracted above, it is clear that there is no specific direction to the respondent – Corporation to pay arrears of salary from 11.10.1996 and as per the award dated 11.10,.1996, the petitioner was awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation in lieu of back wages. 7. Further as per the averments made in the counter affidavit, the petitioner was paid full gratuity, final settlement salary, terminal encashment of earned leaves excluding provident fund contribution and arrears of pay for the period from 10.7.1999 to 30.4.2001 and that in all, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.4,25,317/-. It is further stated that the petitioner earlier filed contempt case in C.C.No.1203/2009 for non-implementation of the orders passed by this court in the present writ petition in W.P.No.3967/2003 and the same closed as the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 11.10.1996 and that now the present contempt case is filed by the petitioner seeking arrears of pay for the period between 11.10.1996 to 10.7.1999. As the petitioner joined in duty only on 10.7.1999, the payment of salary will arise only from 10.7.1999 and accordingly by taking the said date, all the dues, which the petitioner is entitled to, were paid. 8. Denying the above averments made in the counter affidavit, the petitioner has not filed any reply. 9. From the above averments and the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any contempt on the part of the respondent – Corporation and hence the contempt case is liable to be dismissed. However, it is need to observe that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any calculation made by the respondent – Corporation in payment of his terminal benefits, he is always at liberty to approach the Corporation by making his detailed claim, which the respondent – Corporation shall consider in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs. AVS --------------------------------- 21—06—2011