JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - The U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Jhansi region constituted a selection committee in 1985 for selecting from junior Clerks and or Inspector Traffic, Grade II to the newly created post of Senior Clerks. The Committee in its report dated 3-7-1986 recommended the names of 63 persons from the general list and 10 from the reserved list for appointment. The petitioner was not found fit although his case was also considered by the committee. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation but the same was not decided. The petitioner also filed another representation against the adverse entry awarded to him. When these representation were not considered for same time, the petitioner filed a writ petition which was decided on 10-2-1987 with the direction that both the representations shall be decided within a period of two months. 2. When the aforesaid representations were not decided within the time allowed by this court, the petitioner filed another Writ petition No. 2283 of 1989 against the General Manager and the Regional Manager of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. By an-interim order dated 3-2-1989 the Court directed that the respondents should first explain why the earlier order had not been complied with. It was also directed that one post will be kept vacant for the petitioner. Subsequently by an order dated 3-4-1991 the petitioner was permitted to file a fresh representation within one month and direction was given that it will be decided within a period of two months by the Deputy General Manager. 3. In response to the above order the petitioner filed the representation on 15-4-1991 which ought to have been decided by 14-6-1991. However, the same was not decided within the time allowed and finally disposed of on 17-7-1991. In the meantime the petitioner had come up before this Court and had filed a Contempt petition on 21-7-1991. 4 In the country affidavit an attempt has been made to explain the delay on the ground that the papers were lying with the Regional Manager and the Deputy General Manager bad to send for the record from the Regional Manager alongwith his comments. Ultimately these papers were received only on 30-5-1991. Even thereafter the papers were not put up before the Deputy General Manager by the clerk concerned and it was only on 17-7-1991 the papers were brought to his notice. Ultimately these papers were received only on 30-5-1991. Even thereafter the papers were not put up before the Deputy General Manager by the clerk concerned and it was only on 17-7-1991 the papers were brought to his notice. Immediately the same was disposed of on the same day. In this manner the case of the respondent is that the delay occurred on account of some time taken in obtaining the record from the Regional Manager and some more time was spent in his office because the clerk concerned did not put up the file in time. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties 1 do not find that the explanation given by the respondent is proper or even acceptable. 1} is to be noticed that on the earlier occasion the Court had directed on 10-2-1987 to decide the representations within two months. These representations remained pending and were ultimately disposed of in 1989 and that too on a technical ground that the representations were not addressed to the proper authority. If the Corporation was aware that the representation was not addressed to the proper authority the same could have been forwarded to the proper authority. It appears that no pains were taken on the part of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation in this direction with the result that the representations remained pending for almost two years, necessitations the filing of the second representation. 6. Even after the filing of the second representation the matter was not taken with any sense of urgency. The Court passed an order on 3-4-1991 in which it was stated that the representations shall be disposed of within two months. Even then it appears that he effort was made by the respondent to take the matter with any sense of gravity and in a normal office routing the record was sent for alongwith the comments to the Regional Manager, Jhansi. Copy of letter by which the papers were requisitioned from the Regional Manager, Jhansi has not been filed on record, which would have disclosed if the Regional Manager had been directed to sent the file at an early date, as the matter was required to be disposed of within two months. It appears that only a simple letter was sent. Copy of letter by which the papers were requisitioned from the Regional Manager, Jhansi has not been filed on record, which would have disclosed if the Regional Manager had been directed to sent the file at an early date, as the matter was required to be disposed of within two months. It appears that only a simple letter was sent. In any case even assuming that nothing was stated in the letter, the papers infact had been received in the office of the Deputy General Manager by 30-5-1991 and still a period of 15 days was available for disposing of the representation. Even this time in said to have been lost because the clerk concerned did not produce the papers before him. There cannot be any excuse for this. The office works under the control and direction of the respondent and it is his duty to see that the papers are promptly put up before him. Whether there is any slackness or negligence in the office, the respondent will have to suffer on that account. 7. On a consideration of entire material on record therefore. I am of the opinion that the respondent is guilty of having disobeyed the order dated 3-4-1991 passed by the Court in Writ petition No. 2283 of 1989. 8. The second line of submission of the learned counsel was that the respondent has apologised and has prayed that he may be executed for having disobeyed the order of the Court. This apology however does not appear to be bona fide in the sense that in best part of the counter affidavit he has only tried to justify his action. It is not the case in which the respondent has placed himself at the mercy of the Court at the first instance and apologies-es and thereafter to give reasons in justification of his action. The entire attempt of the respondent in the counter affidavit is to justify his action. 9. For the aforesaid reason I do not think that the respondent is genuinely feeling sorry for having disobeyed the order of the Court. 10. The last question that comes for admission now is as to what punishment should be awarded to the respondent. By an order dated 17-7-1991 the representation make by the petitioner had already been rejected. 9. For the aforesaid reason I do not think that the respondent is genuinely feeling sorry for having disobeyed the order of the Court. 10. The last question that comes for admission now is as to what punishment should be awarded to the respondent. By an order dated 17-7-1991 the representation make by the petitioner had already been rejected. The rights of the parties will, therefore, be determined when the Writ petition No. 2283 of 1989 is finally disposed of. 11. There is no basis for judging how much monetary loss has been caused to the petitioner on account of this delay. The only method left with the Court is to impose a punishment of fine on the respondent which in my opinion should be assessed at Rs. 500- in this case. 12. The contempt petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondent is found to have committed disobedience of the order dated 3-4-1991 passed in writ petition No. 2283 of 1989. He is. therefore, fined a sum of Rs. 500-which he shall deposit within three weeks. On the amount being deposited the same shall be paid over to the petitioner.