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. 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 Labour Court, and also the payment of Rs. 7,55,305/-. Learned Government Pleader argues that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages. He points out that the respondents had rightly followed the procedures stipulated under Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is also reproduced in the counter affidavit. He points out that even though the petitioner did not work at all in the relevant period he was paid Rs. He points out that the respondents had rightly followed the procedures stipulated under Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is also reproduced in the counter affidavit. He points out that even though the petitioner did not work at all in the relevant period he was paid Rs. 145/- per day as wages. He also states that the payment made in the Execution Proceedings in the Labour Court was calculated on the very same basis for the period from 01.03.2003 to 31.01.2005. He also denies that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of wages at the SSR rates as revised from time to time. Learned Government Pleader argues in line and deriving support from the counter affidavit. 6. Lastly, it is submitted that in W.P. No. 14480 of 2006 a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the regularization of the petitioner held that he will not be entitled to arrears of salary from 25.11.1993. Therefore, learned counsel argues that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. COURT: 7. The order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 12755 of 2005 was dealing with the termination of the services of the petitioner on 19.05.2005. This order of retrenchment, which has been passed in May, 2005, was set aside by the learned single Judge holding that the procedure under Section 25 (f) of the I.D. Act was not followed and the defect cannot be cured at a subsequent date. He, therefore, directed that the petitioner is deemed to be in service “from the date of retrenchment with all consequential benefits.” Against this W.A. No. 339 of 2019 was filed, which was dismissed on 16.03.2021. Since an order of the learned single Judge was not implemented C.C. No. 3436 of 2018 was filed. This was heard along with the Writ Appeal and also dismissed on 16.03.2021. However, as rightly pointed out by Sri. M. Pichaiah, the issue of arrears/back wages was not decided. Learned counsel points out to Para-4 of the contempt order wherein the issue of calculation of back wages in view of the increase in the wage structure etc. is raised. This issue was left open to be decided by the Division Bench. 8. However, as rightly pointed out by Sri. M. Pichaiah, the issue of arrears/back wages was not decided. Learned counsel points out to Para-4 of the contempt order wherein the issue of calculation of back wages in view of the increase in the wage structure etc. is raised. This issue was left open to be decided by the Division Bench. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 . Here he points out that in paragraph 44 and the concept of pay parity, regularization was discussed and that it was held that if the work component is same the petitioners are entitled to parity. 9. This Court also notices that it is not correct, as argued by the learned Government Pleader, that the petitioner simply accepted all the payments. In the counter affidavit itself it is clearly written that the petitioner’s counsel was not satisfied with the calculations and the rejoinder has already been filed to the calculation. This Court also notices that even in the contempt application, that was argued before the Division Bench, the issue of revision in the wages etc. has been raised by the petitioner. Therefore, it is not correct to state that the amount paid by the respondents were accepted by the petitioner. From the inception he has been agitating for what he is claiming as due to him. According to him the reinstatement with all consequential benefits would include all the wages that were applicable and also as per the modifications on year to year basis. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner accepted the wages unconditionally. It is also noticed that all the payments in this case were made during the course of the Court proceedings only. Therefore, it is not correct for the respondent to state that the petitioner, who did not dispute the amount of Rs. 7,55,305/- cannot now claim the balance amount. The reference and reliance of Section 17(b) of the I.D. Act is also not correct in the opinion of this Court. In the opinion of this Court Section 17(b) of the I.D. Act is like subsistence allowance, (which is paid during the period of suspension). 7,55,305/- cannot now claim the balance amount. The reference and reliance of Section 17(b) of the I.D. Act is also not correct in the opinion of this Court. In the opinion of this Court Section 17(b) of the I.D. Act is like subsistence allowance, (which is paid during the period of suspension). It is a mandatory duty which is fixed upon the employer to pay the full wages last drawn by employee during the period, when the proceedings are pending before the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. This does not, in the opinion of this Court, preclude the petitioner from claiming higher wages if the wages have been revised in the interim period. The order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court is directing the reinstatement along with “all” consequential benefits. The action is of the respondents in this case are clear. At no stage the payment was made voluntarily. Even in the additional affidavit that has been filed, in paragraph 5 at page No. 3, it was clearly mentioned that in order to avoid the arrest the back wages were paid from 26.05.2002 to 25.07.2019. 10. Coming to the calculation of the amounts the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the data, which is furnished in paragraph 3 of his writ affidavit, which details the periodic increase on a year to year basis. The respondent-department did not deny all these figures that are expressly mentioned in para-3. An additional memo was also filed on the direction of this Court showing the enhancement in the schedule of rates from time to time. Reading of these enhanced schedule of rates show that the State is fixing these rates based upon the details of the wages that are obtained from the Labour Department. The SSRs also detail that the wages should not be less than the minimum wages from the schedule of appointment. In the opinion of this Court the respondent State, who is expected to be model employer is bound to pay the minimum wages. Even otherwise, the minimum wages are statutorily payable by every employer, provided the employment is within the schedules of the State Minimum Wages Act. In the case on hand the petitioner has filed data to show that his claim is based upon the calculation of wages, which are given by the respondent’s departments only. Even otherwise, the minimum wages are statutorily payable by every employer, provided the employment is within the schedules of the State Minimum Wages Act. In the case on hand the petitioner has filed data to show that his claim is based upon the calculation of wages, which are given by the respondent’s departments only. The case law cited by the petitioner also supports his contentions. This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the same or to negative the same. The data is sufficient for this Court to conclude that the petitioner is entitled to claim Rs. 10,59,055/-. The issue that survives for consideration is interest: 11. The petitioner is not claiming any interest from any “specific date” but a reading of paragraph-5 shows he is claiming interest from the date of order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 12755 of 2005. As noticed earlier, the payments made by the respondent-State are not voluntary payments. The payments were made during the course of Court proceedings and after orders were passed in favour of the petitioner. The counter affidavit also shows that in order to avoid arrest the payment was made. In the opinion of this Court the petitioner can claim both the principal amount due and interest as all consequential benefits which were given to him. The person, who is deprived of his money is entitled to claim interest by whatever name it is called. In the Constitution Bench judgment reported in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and Others vs. G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508 (while dealing with a case under the Arbitration Act) the Constitution Bench held that 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. The petitioner has been agitating for his right since decades. It is a clear case of individual against the mighty State, a David versus Goliath story. Despite his efforts the complete payment due to him has not been paid over the years. Even in the contempt application the issue about the periodical revision of wages was raised and this was left open for this Court to decide. This Court already held that in view of the above, periodical revision in the wages are also to be paid to the petitioner. Even in the contempt application the issue about the periodical revision of wages was raised and this was left open for this Court to decide. This Court already held that in view of the above, periodical revision in the wages are also to be paid to the petitioner. In line with the said conclusion this Court holds that interest is payable both due to the delay and for the procrastination of the respondents. However, no basis is filed for the interest claim that is made at 12% p.a. As per the Interest Act interest is payable at the rate which the money is taken in deposit by Commercial Banks but this is a matter of pleading and proof. However, Section 34 of CPC, which deals with post decree interest talks of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of payment. This can be adopted as an yardstick by this Court. Therefore, there shall be a direction to pay the outstanding viz. Rs. 10,59,055/- along with 6% interest per annum from 05.10.2018 (date of Writ Petition order) till the date of actual payment. 12. It is also made clear that order in W.P. No. 1448 of 2015, which deals with the benefits of regularization cannot be used to deny the emoluments due to the petitioner. In that case, the issue of regularization of the petitioner and the benefits due to him consequent to regularization was being discussed. The present case arises out of the order passed by a learned single Judge directing the “consequential benefits” to the petitioner, which has been confirmed in a Writ Appeal by the Division Bench also. Hence, in order to implement the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 12755 of 2005 it is ordered and directed that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of Rs. 10,59,055/- along with 6% per annum interest as mentioned above. 13. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.