ORDER : V. Ramasubramanian, J. The petitioner has come up with the above Contempt Petition alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 11072 of 2008 dated 08.04.2013. 2. Heard Ms. U. Nirmalarani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Alagudevan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. Initially, a batch of Writ Petitions were filed by the villagers of Uthapuram, seeking a Mandamus to direct the official respondents to provide protection to the Writ Petitioners to worship the 'Peepal Tree' situate in natham poramboke in front of the temple and to direct the official respondents to remove of the disabilities imposed upon the Writ Petitioners, on the basis of the caste to which they belong. In a few Writ Petitions, a prayer was to reopen the investigation in Crime Nos. 55, 152, 153, 141 and 147/2008 and to hand over the investigation to another agency. 4. The batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of by a learned Judge by an order dated 20.03.2012. The disposal was predominantly based upon an agreement which was brought forth by the efforts taken by the then Superintendent of Police (Rural) Madurai between the warring groups. Therefore, the learned Judge gave certain directions in Paragraph No. 41 of his order made in W.P.(MD).Nos.10500 of 2010 (batch) dated 20.03.2012 with regard to the compensation payable to the victims. 5. Even before those individual Writ Petitions were filed in 2010 and were disposed of 2012, the petitioner namely All India Democratic Women's Association had filed a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.(MD).No.11072 of 2008 for a Mandamus to direct the Government to take precautionary measures as provided under Rule 3 and in other provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for various other reliefs. Though this Writ Petition had been filed two years before the final order passed in the individual Writ Petitions, it came up before the Division Bench for final hearing one year after the disposal of the Writ Petitions by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Public Interest Litigation in W.P. (MD).No.11072 of 2008 by an order dated 08.04.2013 holding that the compensation as already ordered shall be paid. Complaining of disobedience of the said order, the petitioner is before this Court in the above Contempt Petition. 6. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Public Interest Litigation in W.P. (MD).No.11072 of 2008 by an order dated 08.04.2013 holding that the compensation as already ordered shall be paid. Complaining of disobedience of the said order, the petitioner is before this Court in the above Contempt Petition. 6. After notice was ordered in the above Contempt Petition, the Government passed G.O.(Ms).No. 88, Public (Law and Order) Department dated 20.01.2016 sanctioning enhanced compensation of Rs.1,04,32,000/- (Rupees One crore four lakhs and thirty two thousand only) to 191 injured persons who had suffered the actual physical injuries or losses in the occurrence at Uthapuram on 02.10.2008. The details of persons who are included in the list of 191 persons are provided in the annexure to the Government order. Therefore, it could be said the order of this Court has been partly complied with after notice was issued in the above Contempt Petition. 7. But, there are four issues that are now raised by Ms. U. Nirmalarani, learned Counsel for the petitioner. These issues are:- (I) That a uniform compensation of Rs.60,000/- has been ordered to be paid to all 191 persons without reference to the relevant rules and the Schedule under the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 and without reference to the nature of the injuries and losses sustained by them. (II) That the deduction of the interim compensation already paid from the total compensation now ordered, may not be justified in the circumstances of the case. (III) That a method of disbursement of the compensation amount has to be evolved so as to avoid any complications and (IV) That there are eight more persons who are left out. 8. The Annexure G.O.(Ms).No.88, Public (Law and Order) Department shows that all the 191 persons have been awarded the same amount of compensation, namely, Rs.60,000/-. But, the Report of the Court Appointed Committee shows that each individual had suffered different types of injuries and different types of losses. Therefore, the compensation payable to every one of them should have been worked out as per Rule 12(4) read with Notification dated 23.12.2011 issued by the Central Government. But, the Report of the Court Appointed Committee shows that each individual had suffered different types of injuries and different types of losses. Therefore, the compensation payable to every one of them should have been worked out as per Rule 12(4) read with Notification dated 23.12.2011 issued by the Central Government. But the petitioner states that due to long lapse of time and in view of the fact that some of the claimants are now dead, the petitioner does not insist upon a further direction which may take further time. 9. On the contrary, if the Government could be directed not to deduct the interim compensation already paid, the same would, to some extent, compensate for the failure of the respondents to calculate the compensation as per the Central Government Notification. 10. We think that the above solution advocated by Ms. U. Nirmala Rani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, will actually put an end to the long-standing dispute and relieve both parties from further litigations. 11. Mr. Alagudevan, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that even as per the direction contained in paragraph No.41 of the judgment of the learned Judge, the interim compensation is liable to be deducted. 12. We are of the view that the Government need not stand on technicalities in view of the fact that the Government had not calculated the compensation in accordance with the Central Government Notification. If the petitioner is willing to give up one claim, the respondent should reciprocate by giving up the other claim. If the respondent has strictly followed the Central Government notification as per the direction contained in Paragraph No. 41 of the order made in W.P.(MD).Nos.10500 of 2010 (batch) dated 20.03.2012, they can certainly insist on deduction of interim compensation. As a matter of fact, the interim compensation varied from person to person. When the interim compensation varied from person to person due to the difference in the nature of injuries and due to the difference in the type of loss, the final compensation cannot be uniform in all cases. But, to put an end, both parties can accept the solution that whatever is now awarded shall be accepted as final payment without the deduction of the interim compensation. 13. Another issue raised by Ms. U. Nirmalarani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is with regard to eight persons who are left out. But, to put an end, both parties can accept the solution that whatever is now awarded shall be accepted as final payment without the deduction of the interim compensation. 13. Another issue raised by Ms. U. Nirmalarani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is with regard to eight persons who are left out. The list of these eight persons are now furnished with a tabulation. These eight victims are parties to the First Information Report in Crime No. 545/2008 and one of them was also given interim compensation but the claims of these eight persons have been left out. The details of these persons are as follows:- Sl. No. Name and Address of Victims Damage Remarks 1. Nagu, W/o. Pandiaraj, Middle Street, Uthapuram, Madurai District. Household articles and clothes were damaged Received interim compensation of Rs.1000/- 2. Murugan S/o. Raman, Karimettu Street, Uthapupram, Madurai District. Damage to his (Speakers Shop Audio System, mike system etc.,) His wife received interim compensation for the damage of household articles. 3. Sankaralingam S/o. Chinnasamy Devandara Nagar, Uthapuram, Madurai District. Bodily injuries due to assault police Victim went out of Uthapuram Village and so he was unable to attend the enquiry. 4. Mottaiyandi, S/o. Mookaiya, Uthapuram South Street, Madurai District. a) Land, House and Articles were damaged. b) Amount of Rs.4000/- and Gold jewels were stolen FIR was registered as FIR No. 55/2008 dated 17.05.2008 in Elumalai P.S., Uthapuram 5. Vasi, S/o. Ayyar, Uthapuram South Street, Madurai District. a) Land House and Articles were damaged. b) Amount of Rs.5000/- and Gold Jewels were stolen FIR was registered as FIR No. 55/2008, dated 17.05.2008, in Elumalai P.S., Uthapuram 6. Palraj, S/o. Ayannan Uthapuram Sought Street, Madurai District. House and Articles were damaged FIR was registered as FIR No. 55/2008, dated 17.05.2008 in Elumalai P.S. Uthapuram 7. Nagaraj S/o. Chellandi, Uthapuram South Street, Madurai District. Land, House and Articles were damaged FIR was registered as FIR No. 55/2008 dated 17.05.2008 in Elumalai P.S. Uthapuram 8. Rasu S/o. Ayyar, Uthapuram South Street, Madurai District. a) Land, House and Articles were damaged. b) Amount of Rs.3000/- and Gold jewels were stolen FIR was registered as FIR No. 55/2008 dated 17.05.2008 in Elumalai P.S. Uthapuram We are of the view that those eight persons cannot now be left out. 14. The last issue to be decided is about the method of disbursement. a) Land, House and Articles were damaged. b) Amount of Rs.3000/- and Gold jewels were stolen FIR was registered as FIR No. 55/2008 dated 17.05.2008 in Elumalai P.S. Uthapuram We are of the view that those eight persons cannot now be left out. 14. The last issue to be decided is about the method of disbursement. When the interim compensation was directed to be paid, it was directed to be paid in the premises of the District Legal Services Authority, after the learned Counsel for the petitioner identified the victims. We think that it is a much better method to control the manner of disbursement. Therefore, this Contempt Petition is disposed of, to the following effect:- 1. The amount indicated in G.O.(Ms).No.88, Public (Law and Order) Department shall be accepted as a final compensation by 191 persons. 2. The Government shall not deduct the interim compensation already paid in view of the willingness of the petitioner to give up the claim for calculation of the enhanced compensation as per the Central Government notification dated 23.12.2011. 3. The eight persons whose names are given in the tabulation above shall also be paid Rs.60,000/- each as per 41 of the order of the learned Judge made in W.P.(MD).Nos.10500 of 2010 (batch) dated 20.03.2012. 4. The disbursal of the amount shall take place in the Office of the District Service Legal Authority in the presence of the District Secretary and the identification shall be made by Ms. U. Nirmalarani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 5. Insofar as direction contained in paragraph No.4 of the order made in W.P. (MD).No.11072 of 2008, dated 08.04.2013, it is open to the Government to take note of the fact that they are now made to pay compensation due to the acts of omission and commission on the part of the officials and hence, the Government has a right and duty to recover the amount from those officials through appropriate proceedings. 6. Insofar as amount already sanctioned under G.O.(Ms).No.88, Public (Law and Order) Department dated 20.01.2016, it is now available with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti. Therefore, for the balance amount, the Government shall pass fresh orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. 6. Insofar as amount already sanctioned under G.O.(Ms).No.88, Public (Law and Order) Department dated 20.01.2016, it is now available with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti. Therefore, for the balance amount, the Government shall pass fresh orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti shall fix a date and time for disbursement of the compensation within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and inform the petitioner so that the petitioner can make arrangements for the villagers to come and collect the amount.