SATYA BRATA SINHA, J. - (1.) This application for contempt arises out of an order dated 26-9-89, operative portion whereof reads thus - "Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent (?) it is submitted on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the respondent wanted to pay salary but the petitioner did not take the salary. However, the respondents have no objection provided the salary is given in the scale of Store-keeper. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent further submits that since the petitioner did not accept the salary which was payable to me, the respondent have deposited the same in a Bank account and the respondent have no objection if the said amount is withdrawn from the Bank. Considering the facts the petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw the salary and allowances deposited by the petitioner in the Bank along with the interest accrued thereon."
(2.) The petitioner was S-2 Supervisor. He is a science graduate and also holds a post-graduate diploma. As he was not promoted to the next higher post which was filled up by direct recruitment, a suit was filed which was dismissed. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment. It was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court. After remand the suit was dismissed. The petitioner allegedly did not accept the salary from September, 197 9/08/1986 as according to him, he was being paid lower salary. He filed a writ application for payment of the salary and by an order dt. 26-9-89, S. K. Hajari, J. directed that the said amount be paid. The learned Judge as would appear from the order directed that as in the meanwhile the salary of the petitioner was being deposited in the bank account, the petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw the salary and allowances deposited by the respondent in the bank along with interest accrued thereon. On 11-11-89 the petitioner admittedly has been paid a sum of Rs. 92,974.23 paisa by way of salary from February, 1980 to August, 1986. It appears that the respondent filed an application for modification and by an order dated 2-2-1990, A. K. Nayak, J. passed the following order :- "Learned Advocates of both sides are present. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 filed this application seeking modification and if necessary deletion of the words "along with the interest" in the impugned order dated 26-9-89. The application is taken up for consideration. Heard both sides, on a perusal of the relevant order and also the petition, I find that the respondents/opposite parties were directed to pay to the petitioner in the Rule the salaries and allowances including arrears outstanding and due to the petitioner in the main Rule since., 1-9-79 along with interest accrued thereon. Undisputedly, all the admitted salary of the petitioner in the Rule, was deposited by the respondents/opposite parties in the Bank as per the previous order of Court. By the impugned order the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the salary and allowances deposited by the respondent/opposite parties in the Bank along with interest accrued thereon. It is now submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondents/opposite parties that no interest has virtually accrued on the sum deposited, as because the said sum is lying in deposit in the current account. As such, the petitioner in the main Rule is not to get any interest for the simple reason that nothing substantial has accrued thereon. Obviously, the impugned order was passed allowing the petitioner to withdraw the sum deposited with interest which accrued, if any, or at all. Therefore, in consideration of the facts and circumstances no clarification or modification is called for at all. Regarding the prayer of the petitioner in the Rule that some allowances are still outstanding or in other words, the respondents/opposite parties have not made full payment of the petitioner's salary and allowances, nothing can be done at this stage on according to the respondents/opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, nothing is due at all on accounts. The petitioner in the Rule if really aggrieved, may take appropriate steps for realisation of any outstanding dues, if at all due to him. The application is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs."
(3.) Shri Vidyadharan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statements made in paragraph 19 of the application and submitted that a sum of Rs. 15,032/- is still due to the petitioner from the respondent. It has been submitted that no salary has been paid from September, 197 9/01/1980 nor any interest has been paid to him.;