ORDER 1. This Rule arises out of a contempt application filed by the petitioner in the main rule, being C.R. No 5831 (W) of 1981, for wilful violation and contempt of the Court's orders dated 1.10.86 and 24.12.86. 2. It appears that the said Civil Rule was heard for two consecutive days and was made absolute on contest by the Court's order dated April 18, 1980. 3. By the said order the State respondents were directed :- (1) to fix the pay scales of the petitioners under the Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules of 1961, 1970 and 1981 within a period of ninety days from the date of the order and (2) to pay them all arrear emoluments consequent to such fixation within a period of sixty days thereafter. There is no dispute regarding the communication of this order to the respondents. On 19.5.86 the State preferred an appeal against the said Older. 4. The Instant contempt application having been filed on 13.8.86, the State on 10.9.86 moved an application before the learned Appeal Bench for stay of operation of the relevant order passed by this Court but no such stay appears to have been granted. 5. Thereafter, on 20.9.86 the then Collector of Burdwan, Shri Jahar Sarkar, filed an affidavit in opposition on behalf of the respondents stating inter alia that steps had already been taken to fix the pay scales of the petitioners in compliance with the Courts order dated 18.4.86 6. By a subsequent affidavit in opposition dated 30.9.86. It was stated by the said Shri Sarkar that the pay scales of the petitioners had actually been fixed and he prayed for sometime for payment of the arrear emoluments to them. 7. This Court by Its order dated 1.10.86 accordingly extended the time as prayed, till 31.12.86. 8. Thereafter by an order dated 24.12.86 the said period was further extended till 28.2.1987 since Mr. A.N. Banerjee, the learned Counsel for the alleged contemners, contended specifically that the order would be complied within the said period. 9. The time for compliance having been so extended the appeal preferred by the State against the Initial order dated 18.4.86 was allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution This Clearly indicates that the respondents were all set to comply with the Court’s order within the extended time as fixed by this Court. 10. 9. The time for compliance having been so extended the appeal preferred by the State against the Initial order dated 18.4.86 was allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution This Clearly indicates that the respondents were all set to comply with the Court’s order within the extended time as fixed by this Court. 10. But for some reason or other the strategy somehow changed and on 27.2.87 an application was filed for recalling the order of the learned Appeal Bench dismissing the appeal for non prosecution and as it appears, the learned Appeal Bench has granted stay of operation of the said order. 11. Thereafter, the respondents No 2 and 3 filed separate affidavits-in opposition. 12. According to the respondents the order of this Court regarding payment of arrears could not be complied with because- (a) it would create an anomalous position in relation to the reports of the Pay Commissions and Pay Committees; (b) It will upset the whole pay structure after 26 years leading to serious repercussions amongst various sections of Government employees; (c) it will be against public policy and (d) it will cause serious pressure on the public exchequer by opening a flood gate. 12A. In addition to these the respondent no. 3, the present Collector, Burdwan, has denied his liability on the ground that be was not the Collector of the district when the impugned orders were made. 13. In my judgment the contentions so raised by the respondents are totally irrelevant. 14. It is really unfortunate that having suffered an order and having also agreed to comply with it, different excuses have now been sought to be made out for its non compliance. 15. A Court's order, so long it remain effective, is meant for compliance and not to be trifled at. Such a contumacious conduct by the Government, as was observed by the Supreme Court in Gurucharan Das v State of Rajasthan AIR 1986 SC 1418, is indeed heinous since it sets a very bad example to the common man vis-a-vis respect due to Courts of Justice. 16. It need not be emphasised that violation of the Court's order on the ground that its compliance would cause hardship to the Government makes the violation no less wilful than its positive defence. 17. 16. It need not be emphasised that violation of the Court's order on the ground that its compliance would cause hardship to the Government makes the violation no less wilful than its positive defence. 17. Incidentally, during the hearing of the writ petition no such grounds were made out by the respondents as are now sought to be made here in the affidavits-In-opposition Even subsequent to the passing of the order it was not alleged that compliance of the order would cause hardship to the Government To the contrary, It was given to understand at different stages that the order would be complied with and extension of time was aha taken for the purpose And now a decision seems to have been taken by the Government that the orders passed on the basis of undertakings given would not be complied with and fen that different lame excuses have now been set up. 18. This conduct of the Government tends to bring the Court's orders to disrespect, low or its prestige and interfere with the Course of justice. 19. In my judgment, it is a clear case of deliberate and wilful disobedience of the Court's orders dated 1.10.86 and 24.12.86 as already referred to earlier. 20. As regards to the denial of liability by the respondent No 5 en the ground that he at the metrical time was not the Collector of Burdwan, it now seems to be well settled that a person will be liable for contempt of Court, if be, with knowledge of the Court's Older, violates of disobeys such order and it is not indispensable that he should be a party to the proceeding in which the order was passed. 21. The respondent no 3, as Successor to Shri Jahar Sarkar, the former Collector of Burdwan, undoubtedly had knowledge of the order/orders and with such knowledge he has violated the same making him thereby liable for Contempt. 22. Incidentally, it has been alleged in the affidavits in opposition that an application was filed before this Court on 19.3.87 for appropriate order." But no such application seems actually to have been filed. Moreover, the initial order dated 18.4.86 having been passed on contest and the relevant orders dated 1.10.86 kind 24.12.86 having been passed on the basis of undertakings given, no such application, even if filed could be entertained. 23. Moreover, the initial order dated 18.4.86 having been passed on contest and the relevant orders dated 1.10.86 kind 24.12.86 having been passed on the basis of undertakings given, no such application, even if filed could be entertained. 23. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that some sort of apology has been sought to be tendered in the affidavits in opposition but In view of the nature and the facts and circumstances of the case no such apology, in my view, can be accepted. 24. Considering the circumstances of the case, I do not also hold the view that the contemners have exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of contempt in fact the positive cause of the contemners In their affidavits in-opposition, as already stated, Is that the order regarding payment of officers is not capable of being complied with since it would cause difficulty and hardship to the Government though such grounds were not taken during the hearing of the main Rule. 25 Incidentally, I offered suggestion to the concerned authorities through the learned Counsel for the contemners and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioners to give the relief to the two petitioners as a special case on being so ordered by the Court In modification of the relevant order/orders, but unfortunately, this was also not acceded to, And this clearly shows deliberate and wilful violation of the Court's orders. The Contempt Rule issued be, accordingly, made absolute The respondents are held guilty of wilful and deliberate contempt of the Court's orders dated 1.10.86 and 24.12.86 and are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) each to be paid to the Thakurpukur Cancer Research Institute, Calcutta by way of donation within a period of three weeks from this date and to produce receipts in support thereof before this Court on 29.2.88 at 10.30 a.m. 26. In default, the respondents will suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks each. 27. The Registrar, Original Side of this Court be directed to remain present in Court on 29.2.88 at 10.30 a m. with necessary arrangements for taking the contemners into custody in case they have defaulted in paying the fine as directed. No order is made for costs Contempt Rule made absolute Re: Application filed in Court on 28.1.88 Mrs. Manjuri Gupta for the Contemners; Mr. Milan Bhattacharjee for the petitioners. 28. No order is made for costs Contempt Rule made absolute Re: Application filed in Court on 28.1.88 Mrs. Manjuri Gupta for the Contemners; Mr. Milan Bhattacharjee for the petitioners. 28. An application has been filed In Court to• day by Mrs. Gupta, the learned Advocate representing the Contemners respondents in place of the application alleged to have been filed earlier for an appropriate order. The matter has been dealt with in the original order passed this day earlier and in view of Ibo order made therein, this application stands rejected. 29. Mrs. Gupta is permitted to take notes of the relevant portion of the order dated 28.1.88. Application rejected.