Phuleshwar vs Santwana Tiwari and Others

D.P. Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Anil Bhushan for opposite party No. 4, Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned chief standing counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 and 5.

The applicant was appointed on a fixed salary as ''Farrash'' on class IV post in a Intermediate College, Allahabad, duly recognized and aided institution on 27.10.1959. He was appointed as a regular peon w.e.f. 1.8.1973 and his date of birth as recorded in the service book was 13.7.1944. However, he was restrained from functioning as such by the college w.e.f. 13.7.1994 treating his date of birth as 13.7.1934. He made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools against the aforesaid action of the college. The District Inspector of Schools after enquiry, held by his order dated 29.11.1994 that the date of birth of the applicant was 13.7.1944. This order was subjected to a challenge by the management in Writ Petition No. 2022 of 1995. After exchange of pleadings, the writ court dismissed the writ petition and issued the following direction vide its judgment and order dated 21.2.2000.

For the reasons given above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 are directed to reinstate the Respondent No. 4 in service and pay his entire arrears of salary within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Respondent No. 3.

However, against the order of the learned single Judge a Special Appeal No. 295 of 2000 was filed by the management, but the same was also dismissed by an order dated 19.4.2000. As the order was not complied, the present contempt petition has been filed.

In the petition it is alleged that the order of the learned single Judge was served on the management and so also on the District Inspector of Schools II, vide covering letter dated 28.3.2000 which was received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools II, on 30.3.2000. After dismissal of the special appeal, the orders were again served on the Management and also the District Inspector of Schools II. The Management on its part reinstated the applicant on 30.7.2000 in compliance of the orders, but in spite of sufficient knowledge and service his salary, either current or arrears were not released by the District Inspector of Schools II.

Upon issuance of notice Smt. Santwana Tiwari, the then District Inspector of Schools II, filed her counter-affidavit along with an application dated 30.4.2001, stating that the applicant has already been reinstated and the matter for payment of salary has been referred to the State Government by the Directorate and the payment is liable to be made within 15 days. In her counter-affidavit filed along with the application dated 18.7.2001 she has stated that vide letter dated 19.6.2000 the Principal had already been informed that the guidelines have been sought from the Directorate vide her letter dated 9.5.2000 and after receipt of the same further action could be taken. She has further stated on oath that by letters dated 2.7.2001 and 5.7.2001 the entire wage-bills of the applicant had been sent to the Accounts Officer for verification. Thereafter, she was transferred on 11.7.2001. Smt. Farhana Siddiqui was posted in her place, thus she was impleaded and notices were issued to her.

In the counter-affidavit of Smt. Siddiqui filed along with the application dated 3.9.2003, she has stated that directions had been issued to the Accounts Officer to release the salary of the applicant vide letters dated 22.7.2003 and 30.7.2003 but as she was not the Drawing and Disbursing Authority she could do nothing in the matter.

In the counter-affidavit of Smt. Kiranbala Srivastava, Principal of the Institution, it has been stated that in compliance of the judgment of this Court the applicant was reinstated by her on 3.7.2000. She has further stated that vide letters No. 31/JT/2000-01 dated 26.8.2000, No. 52/JT/2000-01 dated 30.9.2000, No. 69/JT/2000-01 dated 2.11.2000, No. 87/JT/2000-01 dated 20.12.2000, No. 97/JT/2000-01 dated 1.2.2001, No. 110/JT/2000-01 dated 22.3.2001, No. 6/JT/2001-02 dated 7.6.2001 and No. 33/JT/2001-02 dated 3.7.2001, etc. all the relevant current wage-bills records were sent to the District Inspector of Schools II for payment of salary to the applicant. It has also been alleged that right from August 2000 to July 2001, the wage-bills of the applicant was regularly sent to the District Inspector of Schools II, but no payment was made. It has further been stated that bills for entire arrears of salary along with all relevant papers was sought to be served on Smt. Siddiqui on 22.7.2002 but she refused to accept it and asked the Principal to get it received by the Finance and Accounts Officer. However, when it was served on the Finance and Accounts Officer, it was returned back to her with a note that it should be sent to Mrs. Siddiqui. Again an effort was made to serve Smt. Siddiqui who refused and thus it had to be sent under registered post to Smt. Siddiqui. She has further stated that through letters dated 22.7.2002 and 13.3.2003, the entire wage-bills in the old pay scale from August, 1994 to October 2001 and wage-bill from January, 1996 to October 2001, in the revised pay scale and attested copy of Service Book were again got received to Smt. Siddiqui.

By a detailed order dated 6.7.2004, on the saying of Smt. Siddiqui, Sri Satyanand Srivastava. Finance and Accounts Officer was impleaded and asked to appear in person on 20th July 2004 but he did not appear on the date fixed and when the matter was taken up on 27.7.2004, again he did not appear forcing this Court to direct the Senior Superintendent of Police to produce Sri Satyanand Srivastava before it on 30.7.2004. On 30.7.2004, the following charges were framed against Sri Satyanand Srivastava and Smt. Farhana Siddiqui.

You, Satyanand Srivastava, Finance & Accounts Officer, show cause why you should not be tried and punished for wilfully and deliberately violating the order and judgment dated 21.2.2000, which was affirmed in Special Appeal No. 2951 of 2000, decided on 19.4.2000 u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

You Smt. Farhana Siddiqui, District Inspector of Schools (II), show cause why you should not be tried and punished for wilfully and deliberately violating the order and judgment dated 21.2.2000, which was affirmed in Special Appeal No. 2951 of 2000, decided on 19.4.2000 u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

In pursuance of the charges, Smt. Farhana Siddiqui, District Inspector of Schools II and Sri Satyanand Srivastava, Finance & Accounts Officer have filed their respective replies.

Replying to the charges Smt. Siddiqui has filed her affidavits along with applications dated 5th August 2004 and 31.8.2004, stating that she assumed charge of District Inspector of Schools II, on 2nd August 2001 and the record relating to the payment of salary of the applicant was placed before her in September 2001 and she asked the Manager and the Principal of the Institution to take necessary action. In her affidavit dated 31.8.2004, Smt. Siddiqui has alleged that vide letter dated 11.6.2003 she had asked the Finance and Accounts Officer for taking prompt action for making payment to the applicant. The said letter is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit and it refers to an earlier letter dated 2.7.2001. She has also stated that she did not intentionally return the bills presented by the management for being sent to the Finance and Accounts Officer but as the earlier District Inspector of Schools had done so, she merely repeated it. In this affidavit she has shifted the blame on the management. She has admitted the receipt of the bills through letter dated 26.7.2003, when she directed the Accounts Officer through her letter dated 30.7.2003 to comply with the order of this Hon''ble Court but the Accounts Officer returned the bills through his letter dated 4.9.2003 with certain objections but again vide order dated 15.9.2003 she directed that the payment should be made forthwith. In pursuance thereof the Accounts Officer vide his letter dated 23.9.2003 returned the bills for further action and thus by letter dated 26.9.2003 she sought release of grant from Smt. Premlata Singh, Joint Director (Finance), who vide letter dated 13.1.2004 sought further clarification with regard to the copy of the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 29.11.1994 and the service book of the applicant and since the documents were not being supplied by the management the case was recommended for necessary action to the Competent Authority vide letter dated 29th June 2004, when show cause notice was issued by the Joint Director of Education and again the Institution was asked for supply of relevant documents on 21.7.2004, whereafter the documents were submitted vide letter dated 26.7.2004 by the Institution and on 28.7.2004, the matter was approved by the Competent Authority and the budget was sanctioned on 31.7.2004, whereafter the cheques were issued in favour of the applicant on 2.8.2004. In the end, she has stated that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that she has committed contempt, she submits her unqualified apology.

The Supreme Court in the case of The Aligarh Municipal Board and Others Vs. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and Others, , has held that a command to a body corporate is a command to all who are officially responsible for the conduct of the affairs and if any one of them, who has any part to play in compliance of the orders of the Court fails to take action within his power, even though he might not be a party to the original proceedings, is liable u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In Suresh Chandra Poddar Vs. Dhani Ram and Others, , the Apex Court has held that power of contempt should not be exercised for a technicality, but only in cases of substantial violation and when there is real prejudice caused to the party, but it should never be exercised as a matter of course. A Division Bench of our Court in G.N. Verma Vs. Hargovind Dayal and Others, and the Apex Court in P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. & Sons Charities, Poolamedu 1990 SCC 626, has taken the view that justification cannot be pleaded as a defence in contempt proceedings. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Joga Singh v. B. S. Dhaliwal (1988) 3 Crimes 745, held the Officer guilty of contempt when in spite of the order of the Court for premature release of a person, it was delayed on the ground of taking advice of his senior and the latter got the order set aside by the Supreme Court. In Ekka Tanga Mazdoor Union AIR 1967 All 98, our court has held that undue delay in carrying out orders of superior court is a contempt of Court. Delay in carrying out an order itself constitutes serious contempt. In Kruthiventi Kutumba Rao Vs. Muthi Venkata Subba Rao and Others, , it was held that even third parties who have knowledge of the order and have any role will be liable for contempt if they do not comply their part.

In Lakshman Prasad Agarwal v. Syed Mohammad Kareem 2002 (2) AWC 1409 (SC): 2002 (47) ALR 378, the Apex Court has propounded that while considering the question of disobedience or otherwise of an order not only the letter of the order but also its spirit has to be considered by the Court.

Further in Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirakh Ghosh 2002 (2) AWC 1123 (SC): 2002 (48) ALR 121, the Apex Court while dealing with a case where there was a clear direction, it held:

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has been introduced in the Statute Book for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general and for due and proper administration of justice in the country....

It has further observed:

...The Government is not a machinery for oppression and ours being a welfare State as a matter of fact be opposed thereto. It is the peoples welfare that the State is primarily concerned with and avoidance of compliance with a specific order of the Court cannot be termed to be a proper working for a State body in terms of the wishes and aspiration of founding Father of our Constitution.

These broad principles are to be applied when examining the present case.

Before I dwell upon the issue raised in this petition, it would be worthwhile to note the statutory provisions relating to payment of salary to such employees as the applicant.

The payment of salary, including arrears, is governed by U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971. u/s 10 liability for payment of salary of teachers and other employees of recognized and aided institution rests with the State Government. In suitable cases the State Government can also recover from the institution the said money u/s 10 (2). The responsibility for payment of salary to the teachers and other employees is with the Inspector u/s 5 of the Act. The Act further has fixed the time within which the payment of salary, without deduction, has to be paid vide Section 3. Section 16 empowers the State Government to frame Rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act.

u/s 16, the Government has framed U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Rules, 1993. Under Rule 6, the salary bill is to be submitted by the 20th of the month to the ''Inspector or an Officer authorized for the purpose by him'' and under Sub-clause (6) the bill has to be verified by the Accounts Officer. Under Rule 8 (2) the Accounts Officer has to sign the bill. The Accounts Officer in the office of the Inspector has to, in case of payment of arrears of salary, enter full particulars of the claim in the register maintained for the purpose. Under Rule 15, it is the responsibility of the Accounts Officer to sign the Bank advice and send the first copy to the Bank and second copy to the Institution and retain the third in the office for record. However, under Rule 18 the responsibility for complying with the provisions of the Rule "shall lie on the Inspector and he shall ensure that no lapse or default is being made....'' He is also responsible for timely action as contemplated under the Act.

Admittedly, Smt. Siddiqui assumed charge of the office of the District Inspector of Schools II, on 2.8.2001. In the supplementary- affidavit filed by the applicant and also in the counter-affidavit filed by the Principal, copies of letters dated 22.7.2002, 9.10.2002 and the noting of the Finance and Accounts Officer dated 18.2.2003, is annexed. It is apparent from these annexures that the entire wage bill together with the service book was sought to be served by the management upon Smt. Siddiqui on 22.7.2002 and again on 1.10.2002, but she orally directed the management to submit the bills and the documents to the Finance and Accounts Officer. Thus, on her direction, by letter dated 9.10.2002 all the aforesaid documents were served on the Finance and Accounts Officer who kept the records with himself for about four months and thereafter he made a note therein dated 18.2.2003 that the entire wage bill and record be given to Smt. Siddiqui. Thus, by endorsement dated 22.2.2003, the Principal directed the peon to submit it again before Smt. Siddiqui where it was submitted through registered post. These averments made in the supplementary-affidavit of the applicant and the counter-affidavit filed by the Principal have not been denied. Under law Smt. Siddiqui was obliged to accept all the aforesaid documents for complying with the positive directions of this Court because under the Payment of Salaries Act and the Rules, she is the Officer responsible for payment. Her refusal to accept the document amounted to deliberate defiance. There is no reason why, when the documents were served to Sri Srivastava on her directions, she did not follow it up because under the Act and the Rules she was the authority to comply with the orders with due promptitude.

Smt. Siddiqui, in the affidavit annexed with the application dated 5.8.2004, filed in reply to the charges has admitted that the entire record and claim of the applicant was placed before her for the first time in September 2001. She has further stated in paragraph 5, that:

the deponent after perusal of the entire record issued a letter on 28.9.2001 in favour of the Manager of the institution and the Manager was directed to take appropriate and necessary action against the Principal.

She has neither filed the alleged letter dated 28.9.2001, nor she has given details as to what was lacking in the record submitted by the management for her to comply with the Court''s order. As already has been noted above, had she perused the entire records, as stated by her, she would have seen the detailed letter of the management dated 16.7.2001, which was received in her office on 19.7.2001. The management in the aforesaid letter had requested for fixation of the pay of the applicant and for that purpose, the original Service Book was also sent with the said letter with the request for fixation of pay to enable the management to submit the entire wage bills. Had she examined the records, she would have found the letter dated 22.7.2002 of the management addressed to her but she had refused to accept it and directed it to be sent to the Accounts Officer, who again referred it back. Again, another letter dated 9.10.2002 was served on Sri Satyanand Srivastava. In both these letters, the wage bill in the old and revised pay scale of the applicant along with the service records was served in the office of Smt. Siddiqui and also in the office of Sri Srivastava. It is apparent that either Smt. Siddiqui did not go through the record as claimed by her in her affidavit or she was preparing a defence for the contempt proceedings. In her affidavit filed in reply to the charges she further says that the report with regard to compliance of the order was received by her through letter dated 26.7.2003 of the management. However, she is completely silent with regard to the letters dated 22.7.2002, 9.10.2002 and 13.3.2003, by which the entire record for payment had been submitted to her. Neither the existence nor the receipt of the aforesaid letter has been denied by Smt. Siddiqui. She has also not explained or has given any reason why she did not act upon the aforesaid letters and only after she was served with the notice of contempt she woke up from slumber, but even after that she took more than a year to comply with the order which was to be complied in two months.

No doubt, it is true that if an order which had to be complied within a fixed time, even if it is complied belatedly, the contempt court should show grace and close the contempt proceedings. However, in this case as also in several other cases, the Educational Authorities do not comply with the order till the time the contempt court is all set for taking action. From September 2001, when she came to know about the direction of this Court, she has given no explanation, why she did not exercise her power for compliance of the order of this Court prior to 30.7.2003. This itself amounts to wilful and deliberate violation. If these facts are examined in the background that this was a case of class IV, lowly paid employee, who is being made to run from pillar to post in spite of having obtained directions of this Court, it cannot, but, be held a case of gross contempt. Under U.P. High Schools & Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971, Smt. Siddiqui is the officer concerned for release of the current and arrears of salary of teachers and other employees of aided Intermediate Girls Colleges. From the letter dated 16.7.2001 (Annexure-12 to the counter- affidavit filed by the Principal), it is apparent that the entire bills were presented in the office of Smt. Siddiqui and received on 19.7.2001. Nevertheless, again the entire bills were submitted through letter dated 22.7.2002 (Annexure-13 to the counter-affidavit) whereby the arrears of salary of the applicant from August, 1994 to October 2001 totalling Rs. 2,39,486 and from January, 1996 to October 2001, in the revised pay scale totalling Rs. 77,419 were also served on Smt. Siddiqui. This was repeated vide letter dated 9.10.2002 (Annexure-14 to the counter- affidavit). Therefore, it is apparent that all the bills with all the relevant records had been served on Smt. Siddiqui at least by July 2002, itself. These averments in the counter-affidavit of the Principal has not been denied and no valid reason worth the name has been given either in the counter affidavit of Smt. Siddiqui or during argument why salary was not released. It would be worthy of note that these very amounts were released after charges were framed. Therefore, it is apparent that basically all the documents had been annexed along with the aforesaid letters and were available on the record of Smt. Siddiqui and also Saytanand Srivastava.

Learned Counsel for Smt. Siddiqui has laid great stress that as the action had been initiated by her, non-compliance would not amount to "wilful" and "deliberate" and as such in view of Section 13 of the Act, she may not be punished.

At the cost of repetition, without going into the case as set up by the applicant, it is clear from the case of Smt. Siddiqui herself that she came to know about the order of this Court in September 2001, but she has not brought on record what bona fide action did she take thereafter. Though, it has been suggested that the management was asked to submit the record but from the letters of the management, it is absolutely clear that the entire record regarding release of salary had been served through letters dated 22.7.2002, 9,10,2002 and 18.2.2003, but even then, in spite of the fact that the order had to be complied within two months, she did not release the salary.

Sri Kazmi has also laid great stress on a letter dated 11th June 2003, by which he contends the Finance Officer was directed to forthwith release the salary. A perusal of the said letter, which is Annexure-4 to the affidavit dated 31.8.2004, shows that she has merely referred to a letter dated 2.7.2001 sent by her predecessor to the Accounts Officer. This letter is annexed in her earlier counter-affidavit filed with the application dated 3.9.2003 which in turn refers to the three letters of the management dated 12.2.2001, 22.3.2001 and 16.4.2001. These three letters are annexed with the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Principal and they refer only to the current salary of the applicant. Letter dated 12.2.2001, is for current salary for January 2001, letter dated 22.3.2001 is for current salary for February 2001, while the letter dated 16.4.2001 is for current salary of March 2001. It should be borne in mind that notices were issued to Smt. Siddiqui on 10th March 2003, but even then while writing the letter dated 11.6.2003 she did not even care to read the letter dated 2.7.2001 and has taken a defence which is non-existant. The letter dated 2.7.2001 was not for arrears of salary from August, 1994 to August 2000. From the record, it is also evident that she did not read even the letter of the management dated 9.10.2003, which related only for arrears of salary from August, 1994 to August 2000. The defence which she is trying to put is based on all these irrelevant letters which are being used to show that she bona fidely took action for payment. In my opinion, this was not a bona fide action on her behalf but only a paper exercise to build a defence. Even this conduct of Smt. Siddiqui amounts to employing subterfuge.

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the management, it is clearly alleged that even though on 22.7.2002 the letter for entire arrears along with all the relevant documents were served on her but she refused to accept it and now she is trying to wriggle out of the situation by blaming the earlier District Inspector of Schools, who had returned the current salary bills to be placed before the Finance Officer. She cannot take shelter on a contumacious conduct of her predecessor and she herself has no valid defence.

Normally, delay may not amount to deliberate violation but where the time is fixed by the Court and no application is made for extension of that time and there is undue procrastination on the part of the officer, without any justifiable reason, it would amount to wilful and deliberate violation. No doubt Section 13 cautions the Court that where the commission and omission does not substantially interfere or tend to interfere with due course of justice or bring into disrespect the authority of Court, it would not amount to wilful and deliberate disobedience. But in the present case, as has already been found above, the order which was to be complied with within two months, the opposite parties took more than four and a half years to comply. There is a very pious reason and object behind fixing of the time limit by the Court. This was a case of class IV employee relating to his salary of about six years and that is why the Court had fixed the period for compliance. Reasonable delay of couple of months or say a year may be condoned on grounds of procedural delay but once it is found that in spite of the records being available repeated letters seeking further information without any justification cannot be condoned. The Apex Court in the case of Noorali Babul Thanewala Vs. Sh. K.M.M. Shetty and others, Dr. (Mrs.) Roshan Sam Joyce Vs. S.R. Cotton Mills Ltd. and others, Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Ors. 1990 (2) AWC 1430 (SC): AIR 1990 SC 2030 Mohd. Aslam alias Bhure Vs. Union of India, and in State of Bihar and others Vs. Subhash Singh, , has held that where a reasonable time limit is fixed by the writ court, it has to be scrupulously adhered to by the officials and if the same cannot be complied within the time fixed, it is incumbent upon the officials to apply for extension of the period fixed by the Court.

If authorities can ignore the time fixed by the Court with impunity, it would amount to wilful procrastination and wilful procrastination ought not be condoned by the Court and wanton stagnation in administration cannot be a ground for default in obeying Court''s order.

Sri Kazmi has further urged that until and unless the grant was released by the Director, the salary could not be paid. The argument is again a ploy to wriggle out from the situation that she finds herself placed. It is not denied that for girls institution, Smt. Siddiqui was the relevant authority for release of salary. The institution was an aided institution as mentioned in Section 2 (b) of the Act and the maintenance grant, as mentioned in Clause (c) of Section 2 had already been granted for payment of salary to the employees of the institution, including the applicant. It is not denied that the institution was receiving maintenance grant from the State and prior to 13.7.1994 salary of the applicant was being paid by the District Inspector of Schools II, from the grant already released by the State Government. It is no bodys'' case that the grant from which the salary of the applicant was being paid was at any time withdrawn by the State Government or the Director. In fact, the order dated 29.11.1994 was an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools II, in favour of the applicant. Thus, in my opinion, there was no occasion for either Smt. Siddiqui or Sri Satya Nand Srivastava to have asked the Director or the State Government for release of the grant.

The Apex Court in the case of Bank of Baroda v. Sadar Uddin Hasan Daya 2004 (2) AWC 1450 (SC): AIR 2004 SC) 942, has held that contempt serves a dual purpose of vindication of public interest by punishment of a contemptuous conduct and coerces the contemnor to act according to law. It has further went on to hold that any one who misleads the Court, he obstructs the course of justice and brings the judicial institution into disrepute.

Both, Smt. Siddiqui and Sri Srivastava have basically tried to shift the blame on each other. They have also tried to mislead this Court by stating that by various letters they have taken bona fide action. But, Smt. Siddiqui has no answer as to why she did not act on the letters dated 22.7.2002 and 9.10.2002, when it was served on her because all the relevant documents had been annexed with those letters and ultimately that very amount was released after charges were framed. Sri Srivastava, as already held above, was bound by the orders of Smt. Siddiqui and his conduct in refusing to release the salary, in the present case, though ordered by her letters dated 30.7.2003 and 15.9.2003, is defiance and contumacious act. Both have also tried to mislead the Court.

From the narration of facts and record, it is evident that the apology tendered by the opposite parties, apart from being an afterthought does not appear to the genuine. Further, a justification and apology do not go hand in hand as both are incompatible. The conduct of the contemnors is nothing less than reprehensible and the Apex Court in the case of Advocate-general, State of Bihar Vs. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and Another, , has held that such an apology should not be accepted in the interest of justice.

For these reasons, the explanation and justification given by Smt. Siddiqui are found to be only a cover up and she is held guilty u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act not only for deliberate and wilful violation of the order and judgment of this Court dated 21.2.2000, passed in Writ Petition No. 2022 of 1995, but also for wilful procrastination.

Sri Satyanand Srivastava, in reply to the charges has filed his counter-affidavit on 5th August 2004. Inter alia, he has stated that he could not pass the bill in view of a Circular dated 21.4.1993. From a perusal of the said Circular which is annexed, there is no restraint on the Finance and Accounts Officer to release the amounts which have been verified and ordered as such by the District Inspector of Schools. Under the Act, the District Inspector of Schools is competent and the only legal authority to order release of salary whether current or arrears. The District Inspector of Schools through her positive direction dated 30.7.2003, had directed Sri Srivastava to release the money within a week but he failed to do so, even though all the wage bills had been earlier verified and checked by him. Once the District Inspector of Schools had directed Sri Srivastava to release the salary, there was no option for him but to release the salary notwithstanding any instruction or circular of the State Government. A Division Bench of our Court in the case of Dr. Rohit Gupta Vs. The Principal, S.N. Medical College, Agra and others, , when confronted with a case where the Principal did not allow the applicant to complete his internship in spite of the order of the Court on the ground that he was seeking direction of the Government, it held that such conduct amounts to gross contempt. In my view, Sri Srivastava was coaxing Smt. Siddiqui into taking a stand with contumacious defence on the basis of the circular dated 21.4.1993, but it would amount to employing subterfuge, especially when twice directions were issued by the District Inspector of Schools II, for passing the salary bill but on both occasions Sri Srivastava failed to comply. The Apex Court in M/s. Shori Lal and Sons and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another, , has held that any officer of the Government who is liable to carry out direction of the Court would be liable for contempt if he shirks his responsibility or tries to over reach the positive directions. Thus, Sri Srivastava is also guilty of deliberate and wilful violation of the orders of the writ court.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the question of sentence.

Both, Smt. Siddiqui and Sri Srivastava have tried to shift blame on each other, but both of them say that they could not release the amount without the concurrence of the Director of Education and have placed reliance on certain circulars. I have examined the Statute law on this point and it is apparent from it that under the Act of 1971 and the Rules of 1993, Smt. Siddiqui was primarily responsible for release of the amounts and once she had issued the directions Sri Srivastava under the Rules, had no other option but to sign the bank advice. Cases of contempt are on the rise even in cases of clear positive directions, the Educational Authorities do not comply with even simple orders except when the contempt court is on the verge of taking action and by then several court hours are lost in the exercise.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it appears necessary to pass a deterrent sentence against both the opposite parties. The facts of this case demand at least one month''s simple imprisonment to Smt. Farhana Siddiqui, District Inspector of Schools II, Allahabad and Sri Satya Nand Srivastava, Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each payable to Registrar-General within four weeks from today and in case of default they shall further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Both are awarded the aforesaid sentence.

The Court Officer is directed to forthwith take both the aforementioned opposite parties into custody and send them to Jail through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, to carryout the sentence of one month''s simple imprisonment each.

The applicant, a class IV employee has been involved in litigation since 1995 and in spite of having a direction in his favour, both the opposite parties took more than three years in complying with the orders, which was to be complied in two months. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts together with the fact that till the last both the opposite parties justified their procrastination and only in the end apologies were submitted, in my opinion, the apology is only an afterthought and has been made only to save themselves from the ignominy of punishment. But any amount of punishment cannot obliterate the harassment of the applicant and as such apart from the sentence both the contemnors are liable to pay compensation.

From the record, it is evident that more than Rs. 3,16,000 was to be paid to the applicant within two months from 30.3.2000 (date of submission of the certified copy on the opposite parties), but since both the contemnors took charge of their respective posts in 2001, they should each be saddled with twelve and a half percent per annum interest on the said amount which works out to Rs. 45,826.

Both the opposite parties shall pay compensation of Rs. 45,826 each to the Registrar-General of this Court within a period of two months from today and in case of default the same shall be recovered from their salary as arrears of land revenue on a certificate issued by the Registrar-General of this Court by the Collector, Allahabad, within a month thereafter and deposit the same with the Registrar-General of this Court. The Registrar-General of this Court upon deposit of the aforesaid amount would release the same in favour of the applicant after due verification by an advocate of this Court.

With the aforesaid directions and orders, this contempt petition is finally disposed of.