Point of Law: A person who deprived of his money is entitled to interest. In the opinion of this Court the ratio of said decision about the delayed payment and interest thereon is applicable even to the present case.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

“.....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying me on par with regular Technical Assistants (Regular Work Inspectors), as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39d of Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents to pay Rs. 10,59,055/- or such other higher amount as this Hon’ble Court finds it with interest @ 12% p.a. grant costs of the proceedings and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. This Court has heard Sri. M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development.

3. This case has a long and chequered history. Sri. M. Pichaiah appearing for the petitioner has submitted long and detailed arguments in this matter. He points out that the petitioner was initially appointed as an NMR Work Inspector in the Sub Divisional Office of the 5th respondent. He was terminated from services on 01.09.1987. The same was questioned in the Labour Court by filing I.D. No. 254 of 1996 and an Award was passed in his favour on 15.09.2001. Since the award was not implemented E.P. was filed. The petitioner was then reinstated into services. He was once again terminated by the respondents. He challenged the same by filing W.P. No. 12755 of 2005, which was allowed on 05.10.2018 declaring that the retrenchment was bad and directed the petitioner to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. Challenging the Labour Court Award in I.D. No. 254 of 1996, an appeal was filed by the State vide W.P. No. 14480 of 2006. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 14.02.2011. Against the order of the learned single Judge, by which the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service (W.P. No. 12755 of 2005) a Writ Appeal No. 339 of 2019 was filed by the respondents, which was also dismissed on merits on 16.03.2021. Since the payments were not made contempt proceedings were started (C.C. No. 3436 of 2018). In the contempt proceedings also learned counsel points out that the issues raised in the present matter viz. the payment of paltry amounts contrary to law was raised. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Division Bench while dealing with the contempt left it open to the petitioner to agitate the same in appropriate proceedings. The present Writ is filed claiming wages for the period from 21.05.2005 to 25.07.2019. It is submitted after deducting the amounts paid through the Court a sum of Rs. 10,59,055/- is due.

4. Sri. Pichaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner argues with his usual force that the payments were only made after coercive steps were initiated and that despite the efforts of the petitioner over years he could not get the proper and due payment. He relies upon the scheduled SSR rates, which are fixed by the respondent department, based upon the Labour Department data to support his claim for Rs. 10,59,055/-. He points out that what is stated in the Writ affidavit in terms of the monetary calculation is not denied in the counter affidavit. Despite this he submits that at the direction of this Court he has also filed the SSR rate document to show that his claim is justified. Learned counsel, therefore, argues that this is a fit case in which the Court should exercise discretion and allow the Writ Petition along with interest. He points out that the order of the learned single Judge in directing the reinstatement with all consequential benefits was clearly flouted and therefore he submits that this Court should allow the Writ.

5. In reply to this learned Government Pleader argues that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. He points out that the respondent has already paid all that is legitimately due to the petitioner. He relies upon the calculation memo, which was filed before the