Judgment B. N. Agrawal, R. N. Prasad, JJ. 1. This writ application has been filed for directing the authorities to make payment of salary to the petitioner from 1-1-1976 up-to-date. 2. It appears that the petitioner filed a title suit bearing Title Suit no.23 of 1979 for declaration that he was legally appointed head clerk of the school in question and he is entitled for salary from the date of appointment. That suit was filed when the school in question was a committee managed school and in that suit, the headmaster, who is respondent No.5 in this writ application, was one of the defendants and he entered appearance and filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed on contest on 17-7-1980. Against the decree of the trial court an appeal was taken before the lower appellate Court. The execution of the decree of the trial Court was stayed by the Appellate Court and the said appeal was dismissed on 11-1-1984. In the meantime, the decree holder filed an execution case, bearing Execution Case No.2 of 1981 in the Court of learned subordinate Judge. The execution case remained pending for a long time and since in spite of the categorical direction given by the executing court, the headmasttr failed to obey the decree, a contempt proceeding was initiated by the executing court against him. It appears that in the meantime, in the year 1980 the school in question was taken over. The petitioner was running from pillar to post, but he was not paid his salary for a single month from 1-1-1976. Ultimately, the petitioner moved this court in C. W. J. C. No.3749 of 1988 as the headmaster, respondent No.5. was not allowing him to join. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this court in the aforesaid case on 2-9-1988 the petitioner was allowed to join the school on 5-9-1988 by the headmaster, respondent No.5. So far the question of payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner is concerned, this court while disposing of the aforesaid writ application directed that the executing court should make all possible efforts for execution of the decree. Since the petitioner failed in his attempt in spite of the aforesaid order of this court, he has no option but to come to this Court by filing the present writ application. 3. Since the petitioner failed in his attempt in spite of the aforesaid order of this court, he has no option but to come to this Court by filing the present writ application. 3. In this writ application, it has been further stated that in spite of the fact that the petitioner did join pursuant to the order passed by this court, he was not being paid his salary. Since the salary was not being paid to the petitioner a rule of contempt was issued from this Court on 18-3-1991 as to why a contempt proceeding be not initiated against respondent No.5. In this writ application on 16-5-1990 the State Government was directed to implement the judgment passed in C. W. J. C. No.3749 of 1988. This Court was further of the view that the current salary of the petitioner must be paid to him. In view of the fact that the current salary as well as the arrear salary was riot paid to the petitioner in spite of the decree and the direction of the executing court, this Court had no option but to issue notice to respondent no.5 on 18-3-1991 to show cause as to why a contempt proceeding be not initiated against him. Subsequently, the records of the title suit, title appeal and the execution case were called for and a rule of contempt was issued from this Court to respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 as to why a contempt proceeding be not initiated against them. Pursuant to the notice, respondent nos.1, 3 and 5 have entered appearance. Respondent Nos.3 and 5 have filed their separate show cause. 4. From the show cause of respondent No.3, it appears that the salary of the petitioner from 2-10-1980 till May, 1991 has been paid to him on different dates in the year 1991. So far the payment of salary relating to the period 1-1-1976 and 1-10-1980 is concerned, it has been stated by respondent no.3 that since the same related to the period prior to take over of the school in question, he could not have made payment of the same, but the payment could have been made only by the Director, Secondary Education. According to respondent No.3, the payment could not be made earlier because of the fault of the headmaster, respondent No.5. According to respondent No.3, the payment could not be made earlier because of the fault of the headmaster, respondent No.5. As the headmaster is Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the school in question, the bill submitted by the headmaster relating to the petitioner was not to be passed by respondent no.3. Accordingly, we accept the show cause filed by respondent No.3. 5. Now we take up the case of respondent No.1. The Director, secondary Education, who is personally present in Court, says that the total arrear salary of the petitioner prior to 2-10-1980 shall be paid to him within two months. The said amount calculated by the District Education Officer is Rs.13,510.45, which amount has been accepted by the Director, Secondary education The Director, respondent No.1, undertakes before this Court that the aforesaid amount of Rs.13,510.45 paise shall be paid to the petitioner by the District Education Officer, respondent No.3 under a demand Draft latest by 5th of September, 1991. Respondent No.3 also undertakes that he shall hand over the demand draft for the aforesaid amount on or before 5th of September, 1991 to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, we do not want to proceed further against respondent No.1 as well. 6. So far the case of respondent No.5, who is headmaster of the school in question, is concerned, it appears to us that he has delayed the payment of arrear salary to the petitioner. We do not find any justification for the headmaster for delaying the payment to the petitioner. On account of delayed payment, the petitioner has suffered in many ways. The petitioner had to run from pillar to post because of the attitude of the headmaster. He is fighting the execution case since ten years and he had to come this court twice. We do not appreciate the attitude of the headmaster in delaying the payment of arrear salary to the petitioner. The petitioner has also suffered loss of interest by delayed payment of the salary. 7. Learned coursel appearing on behalf of the headmaster states that his client is ready to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner for the loss suffered by him. He further says that the amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. We find) hat the offer is reasonable. 7. Learned coursel appearing on behalf of the headmaster states that his client is ready to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner for the loss suffered by him. He further says that the amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. We find) hat the offer is reasonable. In view of this, we do not propose to proceed further in the contempt proceeding against the headmaster as well. 8. In view of the undertaking given by respondent No.5, we direct that respondent No.5 shall pay a sum of Rs.5.000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to the petitioner from his own pocket and not from state exchequer payments shall be made every month at the rate of Rs.500/- (five hundred) through bank draft. The first payment of Rs.500/- (five hundred) must be made by 15th of August, 1991 and likewise the subsequent instalment of Rs.500/-should be paid regularly by the aforesaid date In every subsequent month so long the entire payment is not made. 9. In view of the aforesaid fact, the rule of contempt is discharged and this writ application is disposed of. Petition decided accordingly.