1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 102 OF 2009 Sarjerao Ramchadra Jadhav .. Petitioner. v/s. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. .. Respondents. .... Shri Ashok B. Tajane, for the Petitioner. Shri A. I. I. Patel for the State. Shri Surel Shah for the Respondents. .... CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : MARCH 19, 2010. P.C. The Petitioner alleges contempt of the Judgment and order of this Hon’ble Court dated 13th March, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 638 of 1999. 2. The contempt alleged is in respect of the payment of back wages to the Petitioner, to which the Petitioner was entitled to as per the order of the School Tribunal, Pune Region at Solapur. 2 3. Admittedly, SLP was filed in the Apex Court by the Management against the decision of this Court dated 13th March, 2008. The said SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court on 6th December, 2009, resulting in the Judgment and order of the School Tribunal, Pune Region at Solapur dated 1st January, 1998, being confirmed. It appears that during the pendency of the SLP before the Apex Court, the Petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs. 2,17,087.00 towards the back wages that he was entitled to. As per the Petitioner’s calculations, the total back wages including all the amounts under all the heads comes to an amount of Rs. 2,80,652.00, whereas as per the calculation of the Management, the said amount came to be Rs. 2,17,087.00 plus Rs. 54,000.00 thereby there is a difference of about Rs. 8,700.00 approximately between the calculations made by the Petitioner and the Management. During the course of the hearing of the above Contempt Petition, the learned counsel for the Management Shri Shah states that the amount of Rs. 54,000.00 which according to the Management is now due to the Petitioner would be paid to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. However, Shri Shah states that the Petitioner would not be entitled to HRA for the period between February 1996 to October 1998, though it 3 is sought to be contended that the Petitioner is not entitled to HRA, no justifiable reason is forthcoming from the Management. If the Petitioner is entitled to back wages, undoubtedly, he would be entitled to all the allowances including HRA for the said period. 4. In my view, therefore, the Management cannot deprive the Petitioner of the said amount of Rs. 8,794.00 and the Management would have to pay the same. It would also be relevant to note that the Petitioner has been engaged in litigation since prior to 1998 which has ultimately culminated in the order passed by the Apex Court in the SLP filed by the Management on 6th November, 2009 dismissing the SLP. Though the Management has paid the amount of Rs. 2,17,087.00 that amount has been paid only on 24th September, 2009 as a stay was operating in favour of the Management in respect of the back wages in the writ petition which has pending in this Court. Which stay came to an end on the disposal of the said writ petition. In my view, therefore, the Petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 8 % per annum on the balance of the amount of Rs. 62,565.00 and the Management would therefore pay the amount with 8 % interest per annum upto the date of payment. 4 5. In view of the aforesaid, there is now no warrant to keep the above Contempt Petition pending. The above Contempt Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. [ R. M. SAVANT, J. ]