Court Discharges Rule, Orders Costs Payment to Petitioners. Government Must Ensure Order Implementation

The court accepted the unconditional apology from the second respondent and discharged the rule. The respondents were directed to pay the costs of the petition to the petitioners. The court emphasized the importance of the government ensuring timely and faithful implementation of judicial orders to prevent similar issues in the future.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Non-compliance with the court's order for payment of arrears.
2. Delay in implementation of the court's directive.
3. Evaluation of "wilful disobedience" under the Contempt of Courts Act.
4. Consideration of the apology tendered by the respondents.
5. Assessment of the government's measures to ensure compliance with judicial orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-compliance with the court's order for payment of arrears:

The court had issued a peremptory order on February 13, 1976, directing the respondents to pay the petitioners the arrears of their special pay within three months. The writ was served on the State Government on March 8, 1976, and the certified copy of the judgment was provided on May 13, 1976. Despite these directives, the payment was not made by the stipulated deadline of May 12, 1976. The petitioners made several attempts through letters dated July 22, 1976, November 11, 1976, and February 9, 1977, to remind the respondents of their obligations, but these communications were either ignored or inadequately addressed.

2. Delay in implementation of the court's directive:

The affidavit submitted by the second respondent on August 25, 1977, outlined the timeline and reasons for the delay. The affidavit mentioned that the first step towards implementation was taken only on May 20, 1976, after the expiration of the court's deadline. The Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records were requested to work out the amounts payable, which took an extended period. The Financial Adviser gave clearance on December 24, 1976, and a government resolution was issued on January 13, 1977. However, the petitioners complained that even by August 26, 1977, not all had received the authorization slips or full payments.

3. Evaluation of "wilful disobedience" under the Contempt of Courts Act:

The court examined whether the delay constituted "wilful disobedience" under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which requires establishing "wilful disobedience" to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other processes of a Court. The court noted that the disregard for the order was evident from the facts: the peremptory order was made in the presence of the government advocate, no stay order or extension was sought, and the first step towards compliance was taken only after the deadline had expired. The court considered whether the disregard was accidental or bona fide or arose from gross neglect or reckless disregard.

4. Consideration of the apology tendered by the respondents:

The second respondent tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology for the delay. The court acknowledged this apology and noted that after the contempt petition was filed, the second respondent took all possible steps to implement the court's order with the necessary expedition. The court also considered the departmental instructions issued by the government to ensure the faithful implementation of court decisions.

5. Assessment of the government's measures to ensure compliance with judicial orders:

The court highlighted the need for the government to set up effective machinery for the quick implementation of lawful orders passed in judicial proceedings. The court referred to a recent case (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 319 of 1977) where it had pointed out the need for timely compliance with court orders and emphasized that a government ruled by laws must carry out lawful orders faithfully and honestly.

Conclusion:

The court accepted the unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by the second respondent and discharged the rule. However, it directed the respondents to pay the costs of the petition to the petitioners, emphasizing the need for the government to ensure timely and faithful implementation of judicial orders to avoid similar issues in the future.

---