Judgment Gyan Sudha Misra, J.-It appears that the respondent in this appeal Shri Ramesh Chand Saini had filed an application before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur challenging the order of his termination passed by the Managing Committee of his school known as Saini Adarsh Vidhya Mandir on several grounds The Tribunal, after hearing the contesting parties, was pleased to set aside the order of termination and ordered for his reinstatement w.e.f. 01.03.1994. The Tribunal also passed an order that Shri Ramesh Chand Saini shall be entitled to the appears of salary alongwith all consequential benefits with effect from 01.03.1994. 2. The respondent-school unsuccessfully challenged this order before the learned Single Judge against which an appeal before the Division Bench also stood finally dismissed. The Secretary of the school thereafter filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court challenging the Judgment and order of the High Court but the same was also dismissed. Prior to dismissal of the appeal before the Supreme Court, a suo motu proceeding for contempt had been initiated by the Court itself as the appellant-school had not made payment to the respondent-teacher Shri Saini in spite of the order of the Tribunal. This is how the contempt petition has emerged wherein the Court on an earlier occasion had noticed that in pursuance of the direction of this Court, in the contempt proceeding, the respondent had deposited Rs. 15,668/-, by way of cash and in addition three cross cheques had also been deposited by the contemner for a sum of Rs. 15, 668/-,. But a sum of Rs. 15,120/-, has already been paid to the respondent-teacher Shri Saini by way of a demand draft. Thus, in all Rs. 77,790/-, is payable by the contemner to the applicant-teacher-Shri Saini out of which he has received a sum of Rs. 15,120/-, only, since the balance amount is lying into the credit of the High Court as per the certificate issued by the Registrar (Admn.). 3. Thus, the amount which has been encashed by the Registry of this Court through the cheques which had been issued in the name of Registrar (Admn) is lying in the account of the High Court in regard to which certificate dated 06.09.2005 issued by the Registrar (Admn.) has been furnished by the Counsel for the contemner. However, the respondent-teacher-Shri Saini uptill now has received the cash amount of Rs. However, the respondent-teacher-Shri Saini uptill now has received the cash amount of Rs. 15,668/-, only and although the cheques have been credited in the account of the Registrar (Admn.) of this High Court, the same has not been received by the respondent-teacher Shri Saini. 4. Ms. Madhuri Singh, Counsel for the respondent-Shri Saini, has further submitted that the amount which has been paid by the contemners and a part of which has been received by the respondent-teacher-Shri Saini, does not include the amount towards all the consequential benefits to which the respondent- Saini is entitled in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. But as per the contention of the Counsel for the respondent-contemner Mr. CP Sharma, the entire amount has been paid to the respondent-teacher Shri Saini. The Counsel for the respondent-teacher Ms. Madhuri has strongly refuted this as she submitted that the respondent-teacher-Shri Saini is entitled to a much higher amount as per the revised pay scale prescribed for even an untrained teacher which was being paid to all other similarly situated persons except the respondent-teacher-Shri Saini. This has given rise to heated arguments and counter arguments between the Counsel for the parties which is not possible to be adjudicated by this Court as the same relates only in regard to its computation. However, we have noticed the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal which states as follows:- f”kf{kr gksus½ vihy esa r; fd, tkus ;ksfd ÞvU; izu ¼vFkkZr~ de osru ;k vihykFkhZ dks vizX; ugha gS] D;kas mudk laca/k lsok dh voLFkkvksa ls gS] tks leqfpr vkosnu ij gh lqus tk ldrs gSAß 6. According to the Counsel for the contemner, this observation clearly denies any right to the respondent-teacher to raise his claim for enhanced pay scale or the revised pay scale by way of a petition for contempt. 7. The Counsel for the respondent-teacher-Shri Saini has further raised a grievance that apart from not making the entire payment to the respondent-teacher, the contemners has also actively restrained the respondent-teacher from functioning in the school and has gone to the extent of assaulting the teacher. 8. 7. The Counsel for the respondent-teacher-Shri Saini has further raised a grievance that apart from not making the entire payment to the respondent-teacher, the contemners has also actively restrained the respondent-teacher from functioning in the school and has gone to the extent of assaulting the teacher. 8. Under the existing facts and circumstances as also in view of the aforesaid observation of the Tribunal, we think it would not be appropriate for this Court to enter into the question as to how much amount is payable to the teacher by way of consequential benefits. We have further noticed that a provision under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act 1989 and Rules of 1993 in Section 27(a) has been incorporated for execution of the orders of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to permit the respondent-teacher-Shri Saini to draw the amount from the High Court Registry which is lying into credit of the High Court for an amount of Rs. 62,670/-, which shall be paid by the Registrar (Admn.) by issuing a cross-cheque in favour of the respondent-teacher-Shri Saini expeditiously but not later than a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order. If the teacher-Shri Saini is dissatisfied with this amount and feels that the order of the Tribunal has not been satisfied in toto, he would be at liberty to file an application for execution before the competent Court in terms of Section 27(a) of the Act of 1989 read with Rules of 1993 but in view of pendency of this litigation before the High Court for no fault on the part of the applicant-teacher, we consider it just and equitable to direct that the question of limitation be allowed to be urged before the executing Court by the contemner-Management of the school. 9. This contempt petition thus stands partly allowed and the remaining part of the relief as already directed, may be executed before the competent Court provided a case is made out in favour of the respondent-teacher for further payment. 10. The certificate produced by the Registrar be made a part of the record of the paper book and a copy of that certificate shall also be furnished on Mrs. Madhuri Singh the Counsel for the applicant/respondent-teacher-Shri Saini.