IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.06.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU CONTEMPT PETITION NO.252 OF 2008 Era Ganesan .. Petitioner Vs. K.Jayaraman The Registrar, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai-600 025 .. Respondent This contempt petition has been preferred under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for disobedience of the order passed by this court in W.A.No.533 of 2001, dated 29.03.2007. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Selvaraj For Respondent : Mr.G.K.Chandrasekaran for M/s.Row & Reddy - - - - ORDER (The order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This contempt petition is brought forth by the petitioner, seeking punishment to the respondent for the alleged disobedience of the order passed by this court in W.A.No.533 of 2001, dated 29.03.2007. 2.The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The court heard the learned counsel on either side. 3.It is not in controversy that the petitioner, who was employed as the Head of the Training Centre, Anna University, was compulsorily retired from service, by an order dated 11.02.1993. Questioning the same, he filed W.P.No.3408 of 1993. Pending same, the respondent sent a revised order to the petitioner on 24.02.1993, stating that he was compulsorily retired from service with effect from 28.02.1993. Challenging the said revised order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3831 of 1993 and the same was disposed of on 22.12.2000, whereby the compulsorily retirement was upheld. However, there was a direction issued to the respondent University to pay full emoluments from 20.06.1980 to 26.11.1990. Challenging the same, the respondent filed W.A.No.533 of 2001, contending that the petitioner was not entitled to full salary. Equally, the petitioner filed W.A.No.902 of 1993, contending that the order of compulsorily retirement should be quashed. Both the writ appeals were taken up for consideration by the Division Bench, which confirmed the order passed in W.P.No.3831 of 1993. Not satisfied with the same, the petitioner has preferred S.L.P. before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed. Under these circumstances, this petition has been brought forth, stating that when the judgment in the writ appeal was rendered by this court, there was a specific direction for payment of full salary and thus, he was entitled for full salary from 20.06.1980 to 26.11.1990 and that by making a wrong calculations, the amounts have been paid and thus, the respondent University has committed disobedience of the order of this court and hence, necessary proceedings have got to be initiated for the disobedience. 4.In answer to the above, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that it is true, there was a direction for payment of full salary for the said period; that the same has also been calculated, but deducting the subsistence allowance what was paid in the interregnum period; that though there was no rule available, it was actually paid; that the order of this court also gave way for deducting subsistence allowance what was actually paid; and that the entire salary calculated for the said period was Rs.3,71,656/- and interest was also calculated from 26.11.1990 and adjusting the subsistence allowance, the entire balance was paid by way of cheque. The learned counsel would further add that what is now contended by the petitioner's side is that he wanted to get increment during the interregnum period, to which he is not entitled at all; that though this court has passed an order for payment of full salary, it would not mean payment of salary on the basis of increment, to which the petitioner is not entitled to, because it is pertinent to point out that during the interregnum period, which covered the suspension, the petitioner was not working and hence, he cannot ask for payment of any increment during the relevant period and hence, this contempt petition does not carry any merit and it has got to be dismissed. 5.After hearing the learned counsel on either side, the court is of the considered opinion that this contempt petition requires an order of dismissal. It is not in controversy that both the writ appeals were dismissed, confirming the order of the learned single Judge, granting payment of full salary for the period from 20.6.1980 to 26.11.1990. It is not in controversy that the amounts have been calculated and after deducting the subsistence allowance, the entire balance has been paid. 6.The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the interregnum period of suspension, he was also entitled for increment and on the basis of which it should have been calculated, but it has not been done so. The Court is of the considered opinion that this petition requires an order of dismissal for more reasons than one. There was a period, during which full wages have been ordered to be paid and he was under suspension. The compulsory retirement was actually upheld by the Court and it was not disturbed. Now, payment has been made during the relevant period. The full wages that too for the period of suspension, could not have been worked out. Therefore, no question of increment during the relevant period could have been given. What was paid to him at the time of suspension, as calculated by the respondent University, was perfectly correct. This Court is unable to see any disobedience in the order of this court and this contempt petition does not carry any merit whatsoever. Accordingly, this contempt petition is dismissed. (M.C., J.) (S.P.V., J.) 12.06.2008 Index : Yes Internet : Yes vvk To The Registrar, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai-600 025. M.CHOCKALINGAM, J. AND S.PALANIVELU, J. vvk CONT.P.NO.252 OF 2008 12.06.2008