JUDGMENT 1. - A low paid employee like the petitioner, who had earlier filed a writ petition and was successful in getting his termination from service declared as illegal and void and also in getting a declaration about his entitlement t& get salary in the regular pay scale of Class-IV employee by being fixed at the minimum of the pay scale, has filed this contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the court's order. 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4614/90 was filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the termination of his service by order dated 3.9.90 be declared illegal and be set aside and the petitioner be directed to be reinstated in service with all back wages. He also made a prayer that the respondents should be directed to pay him salary in the regular pay scale. The State of Rajasthan, Director, Social Welfare Department, District Social Welfare Officer, Alwar and the Assistant Superintendent (Hostel) Social Welfare Department, Kathumer, district Alwar, were parties to the writ petition. A joint reply was filed by the respondents to contest the writ petition. After hearing the parties, the Court allowed the writ petition vide its order dated 12.4.91. The operative portion of the order of the High Court reads as under: "In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 3.3.1990 of the termination of the service of the petitioner is illegal and viod. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in the service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner shall be paid salary in the regular pay scale of Class-IV employee by being fixed at the minimum regular pay scale w.e.f. 7.9.90 when the writ petition was filed in this Court. Arrears shall be paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This will not prejudicially affect the petitioner's right to claim benefit of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', if any case filed by the petitioner in any competent court is pending. The petitioner shall be paid the cost of Rs. 1,000/-." 3. The petitioner submitted a copy of the order of the High Court to the District Probation and Social Welfare Officer, Alwar, on 1.5.91. When he did not get relief he made a representation dated 21.5.91, which was forwarded by the Assistant Superintendent (Hostel) Kathumar, district Alwar. The petitioner shall be paid the cost of Rs. 1,000/-." 3. The petitioner submitted a copy of the order of the High Court to the District Probation and Social Welfare Officer, Alwar, on 1.5.91. When he did not get relief he made a representation dated 21.5.91, which was forwarded by the Assistant Superintendent (Hostel) Kathumar, district Alwar. After waiting for about a month and half, he made representation dated 9.7.91 to the Director, Social Welfare Department and enclosed a copy of the order of the High Court. But, even thereafter, no action was taken by the non-petitioners, inasmuch as, he was neither paid salary in the regular pay scale nor was he allowed arrears of salary. It is relevant to point out that by interim order dated 12.9.90, the Court had stayed the termination of the services of the petitioner and had directed that he shall be allowed to continue in service as he was continuing prior to 3.9.90. After exhausting his efforts to seek implementation of the order of the Court through administrative channel, he filed a contempt petition on 14.8.91. 4. Notice of the contempt petition was issued to the non-petitioners on 25.11.91. On 5.2.92 the Court further called upon to the non-petitioners to show cause as to why they be not punished for contempt of Court, because, even after the service of notice of the Contempt Petition the only step which had been taken was to issue an order dated 28.1.92 sanctioning payment of salary to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 750-12-798-13- 850-15-940, w.e.f. 7.9.90 and for payment of costs. Actual payment was still not done. A reply was, thereafter, filed on 28.2.92. In this reply, the allegations made in the contempt petition have by and large not been disputed. In para 2 of the reply it has been stated that the the photostat copy of the order was received in the department on 29.7.91. The legal opinion was sought from the Government Advocate which was received on 22.8.91, after two reminders were sent on 1.8.91 and 16.8.91. The opinion was Sent to the Law Department on 11.11.91, but the Law Department returned the papers to the Social Welfare Department on the pretext that the opinion had not been given on the certified copy. The matter was again sent to the Law Department after receipt of the notice of the Contempt Petition. The opinion was Sent to the Law Department on 11.11.91, but the Law Department returned the papers to the Social Welfare Department on the pretext that the opinion had not been given on the certified copy. The matter was again sent to the Law Department after receipt of the notice of the Contempt Petition. Certified copy of the order dated 12.4.91 was received on 22.1.92. Thereafter, on 28.1.92 the order was pasted for giving appointment to the petitioner in the regular pay scale of Rs. 750-940/-. Payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- was also sanctioned by another order dated 28.1.92. Actual payments were given to the petitioner on 14.12.92 (sic 14.2.92), 17.2.92 and 26.2.92. It has then been stated that the non-petitioners did not have any ulterior motive or mala fide intention to disobey the orders of the Court. The compliance of the court's order could not be made because, opinion was sought from the Government Advocate and then the matter was referred to the Law Department. The affidavit which has been filed in support of reply to the Contempt Petition contains statement that the contents of paras 1 to 3 of the reply are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge based on official records as well as on the basis of legal advice tendered to me by our counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kamlakar Sharma has streneously urged that a low paid employee has been put to unwarranted harassment and has been burdened with uncalled for expenditure by being compelled to file this contempt petition, because, the non-petitioners did not comply with the court's order despite the fact that the copy of the order had been served on the non-petitioners. He argued that even as per the reply the copy had been received on 29.7.91. The period of two months specified in the order dated 12.4.91, even if, counted w.e.f. 29.7.91, expired on 29.9.91. He argued that mere sending the file for opinion of the Government Advocate or the Law Department cannot constitute any justification for non-compliance of the court's order. This is a device innovated by the departmental authorities in order to avoid compliance of the court's order within the specified time. He argued that mere sending the file for opinion of the Government Advocate or the Law Department cannot constitute any justification for non-compliance of the court's order. This is a device innovated by the departmental authorities in order to avoid compliance of the court's order within the specified time. Shri Sharma further argued that if the non-petitioners were sincere in compliance of the court's order, instead of merely writing letters, the file would have been sent to the Government Advocate or the Law Department through messenger. He further argued that mala fide on the part of the non-petitioners is evident from the fact that even after the receipt of the notice of contempt petition, the non-petitioners did not immediately make payment of the arrears to the petitioner. Only when it was realised that the Court will take adverse view, the non-petitioners ultimately made payment in the month of February, 1992. 6. Shri J.M. Saxena, learned counsel for the non-petitioners, on the other hand, urged that the non-petitioners have not disregarded the court's order deliberately and they have acted in good faith. They have not wilfully disobeyed the court's order. 7. It is clear from the facts which have been placed on record that the petitioner had submitted a copy of the order dated 12.4.91 before the non-petitioner No. 2 as early as on 1.5.91. Although, there is no evidence to show as to when the non-petitioner No. 1 received that copy of the order but, it is clear that the petitioner had sent another copy of order alongwith his representation dated 9.7.91. Even as per the admission contained in para 2 of the reply, photostat copy of the order was received on 29.7.91 by the Social Welfare Directorate. The Court had given clear direction to the non-petitioners to pay to the petitioner salary in the regular pay scale w.e.f. 7.9.90 and to pay arrears within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. It is true that the non-petitioners were entitled to prefer appeal against the order dated 12.4.91 either before the Division Bench and then Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in case they felt aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge. It is true that the non-petitioners were entitled to prefer appeal against the order dated 12.4.91 either before the Division Bench and then Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in case they felt aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge. Every litigant including the Government and its functionaries have a right to challenge the order passed by any Court including the High Court by way of appeal or by way of Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. No hinderance or fetter has been placed either by a statutory provision or by any judgment of the Court on this right of the aggrieved party. But, if an order passed in a writ petition by a Single Bench is not appealed against or, if appealed against, no stay order is passed by the Division Bench or by the Supreme Court, it is the bounden duty of the non-petitioners and other concerned authorities to give effect to the order. If a time limit is specified in the order, the effect is to be given to that order within the specified time and if, time limit is not fixed, then within a reasonable time. If any party or administrative authority feels any difficulty in implementing the court's order within specified time, the only course open to it is to make an application seeking extension of time. Such authority cannot decide unto itself, as to whether it will take necessary steps in compliance of the court's order or not. No department of the Government including the Law Department can possibly say that even though the order passed by the court has become final, the same is not to be given effect to at all or within specified time. In our constitutional set up three organs of the State have well defined jurisdictions. Constitution has imposed a duty on the Judiciary to exercise power of judicial review in administrative matters and also to examine the legality and constitutionality of the administrative actions or executive decisions. It is also the duty of the Court to examine the constitutional validity and vires of the statutory enactments as and when challenge is made to such enactment/instruments. These duties are in addition to the duty of adjudication of disputes between the private individuals inter-se and between the State and citizens/individuals. It is also the duty of the Court to examine the constitutional validity and vires of the statutory enactments as and when challenge is made to such enactment/instruments. These duties are in addition to the duty of adjudication of disputes between the private individuals inter-se and between the State and citizens/individuals. Once the court finds that an action of an administrative authority or a particular piece of legislation (plenary, delegated or sub-delegated) is contrary to the Constitution it is the duty of the Court to strike down such action or legislative instruments. The Legislature has been assigned the task of laying down the policy for the governance of the country and of enacting laws which are applicable to the entire population or to a group or section of the population. The Executive has the duty to implement the policies enacted by the Legislature and to give effect to the laws enacted by the Parliament/State Legislatures. Each one of the three organs of the State have to discharge their obligations in accordance with the constitutional frame work and it is only then that it will be possible to realise the constitutional goals enacted in the preamble of the Constitution of India. The theory of check and balance has always to be kept in mind in the exercise of these powers and discharge of duties. It is unfortunate that during the last few years there has been a growing tendency on the part of the executive to disregard the orders of the court, even when no appeal is filed against such orders or if filed, the same is dismissed. The large number of petitions filed alleging disobedience of the court's order is a clear indicator of this tendency. When the contempt petition is filed before the Court a spacious plea is usually raised about the time spent in seeking opinion of the Government counsel or the Law Department or the administrative department. At times, the flimsy pretext of the successful party not filing certified copy is taken. When the contempt petition is filed before the Court a spacious plea is usually raised about the time spent in seeking opinion of the Government counsel or the Law Department or the administrative department. At times, the flimsy pretext of the successful party not filing certified copy is taken. It must be made absolutely clear that merely because, a particular authority considers it appropriate to seek opinion of the Government counsel or the administrative department or the Law Department, it cannot sit over the order of the Court in silence and wait for the opinion of any other functionary or authority and thereby allow the time specified in the court's order to lapse without giving effect to the directions/orders of the Court. As already noticed, if the departmental authority considers it appropriate to challenge the order passed by a single Bench by way of appeal before the Division Bench, it is free to do so, but, for that, it has to take steps and get stay against the order of the Single Bench within the specified time or to make application for extension of time. The correspondence between the departmental authorities cannot give any protection to any Government authority from the charge of disobedience of the Court's order. 8. In the present case, the non-petitioners were represented before the Court by the learned Additional Government Advocate. Since they had contested the writ petition it is not possible to assume that they were not aware of the factum of pendency of the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Since, there was an Officer Incharge appointed on behalf of the non-petitioners, there is every reason to believe that he must have been keeping a watch over the progress of the case. Normally, after the decision, it was for him to have communicated to the departmental authorities about the decision of the Court. But, even if, it is assumed that the departmental representatives could not keep track of the case, the petitioner on his part had submitted copies of the orders to the District Probation and Social Welfare Officer as well as the Director, Social Welfare. It is not the case of the non-petitioners that they had taken any decision to file appeal before the Division Bench. Even this has not been shown as to when any step for filing the appeal had been taken by them. The maximum which the non-petitioner Nos. It is not the case of the non-petitioners that they had taken any decision to file appeal before the Division Bench. Even this has not been shown as to when any step for filing the appeal had been taken by them. The maximum which the non-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had done was to send the copy of the order to the Directorate of the Social Welfare, and what was done on the part of non-petitioner No. 1 was to send the file first to the Government counsel and then to the Law Department. No material has been placed on record to show as to what urgency was shown by the non-petitioners in giving effect to the Court's order after 29.7.91. The reason given by the non-petitioner No. I is, in my opinion, not sufficient to explain non-complipce of the court's order within the specified time. 9. The term 'wilful' has not been defined in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 'Wilful' according to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Edition, implies nothing blameable, but merely that the person of whose action or default. the expression is used is free agent, and that what has been done arises from the spontaneous action of this will. It amounts to nothing more than this, that he knows what he is doing, and intends to do what he is doing, and is a free agent, what is intentional is 'wilful'. The ordinary meaning of 'wilful' as defined in Concise Oxford Dictionary is that, action or state for which compulsion or ignorance or accident cannot be pleaded as excuse, intentional, deliberate, due to perversity or self-will. 10. According to Black's Law Dictionary (Revised 4th Edition), 'wilfulness' implies an act done intentionally and designedly; "wantonness" implies action without regard to the rights of others, a conscious failure to observe care, a conscious invasion of the rights of others, wilful, unrestrained action and "recklessness" a disregard of consequences, an indifference whether a wrong or injury is done or not, and an indifference to natural and probable consegiuences. 11. 11. In Stancomb v. Trowbridge Urban District Council (1910) 2 Ch.D. 190 , Warrington, J. said:- "In my judgment if a person or a corporation is restrained by injunction from doing a particular act, that person or corporation commits a breach of the injunction, and is liable for process for contempt, if he or it in fact does the act, and it is no answer to say that the act was not contumacious in the sense that, in doing it, there was no direct intention to disobey the order. I think the expression "wilfully" in Or. XLII Rule 31 is intended to exclude only such casual or accidental and intentional acts-as are referred to in Fairdough v. Manchester Ship Cara 1 Company. " 12. This view was followed by House of Lords in Heatons Transport Ltd. v. Transport and General Workers Union, 1972 (3) A11.E.R. 101 . The House of Lords observed:- "To establish that disobedience was wilful, it was not necessary to show that it was contumacious in the sense that there was a direct intention to disobey the order, it was sufficient to show that disobedience was not casual or accidental or intentional" The House of Lords further observed it is also the reasonable view, because a party in whose favour an order has been made is entitled to have it enforced and also the effective administration of Justice normally requires that some penalty for disobedience is more than usual, accidental or unintentional." 13. In (3) Tarafatullah v. S.N. Maitra 1953 Cr.L.J. 136 , the Calcutta High Court had dealt with the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 and observed as under: "When an injunction is granted against a Corporation, which afterwards does or permits an ad in breach of the injunction, there is a wilful disobedience of the order and it w~ be no answer for the Corporation to say that the act was done or the omission allowed to occur unintentionally, or through carelessness, or through dereliction of duty on the part of servants of the Corporation. The same princes would apply in the case of a Government or a State, but, before an individual officer of, the Government can be held to be liable, it must be established that he was the person in charge of the subject matter to which the injunction or order, alleged to have been disobeyed, related and unless that is established, no case against an individual officer can succeed." 14. From the above quoted dictionary meaning of the term 'wilful' and the decisions of the Courts, it is reasonable to derive that term 'wilful disobedience' used in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 cannot be construed to mean that an act must in all cases be designed and deliberate to be held as civil contempt. If a party who is fully in know of the order of the Court or is conscious and aware of the consequences and implications of the Court's order, ignores it or acts in violation of the Court's order, it must be held that disobedience is wilful. It is not the requirement that the act must be done with criminal intention or motive. In my view, it is never practicable to prove the actual intention behind the act or omission. A court can approach the question only objectively and is forced to presume the intention from the act done, from the maxim that every man is presumed to intend the probable consequence of his act. 15. In view of the above position of law it is held that the non-petitioner No. 1 has committed contempt of Court. So far as non-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they cannot be held responsible for non-compliance, because, they do not have the authority to sanction or make payment of salary to the petitioner in the regular pay scale. 16. However, having regard to the fact that now full effect has been given to the court's order and unqualified apology has been tendered by the non-petitioner No. 1, I do not consider it to be a fit case to impose any penalty on the non-petitioners. 17. The petitioner has suffered and has been put to unnecessary monetary loss on account of the failure of the non-petitioners to carry out the court's order within the specified time. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get costs of this petition which is assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. 18. 17. The petitioner has suffered and has been put to unnecessary monetary loss on account of the failure of the non-petitioners to carry out the court's order within the specified time. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get costs of this petition which is assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. 18. With the above direction, the contempt petition is disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******