JUDGMENT 1. - This contempt petition has been filled by the petitioners alleging non-compliance of the order dated 30.1.1991 passed by the Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 179/1990, Brahmanand Pandey and another v. State of Rajasthan and another . 2. In the main writ petition in which the petitioners had made a claim for payment of salary in the regular pay scale. The Court had issued the following directions : "The respondents directed to pay to the petitioners salary in the regular pay scale of Helper w.e.f. 2.1.1990. the date of filling of Writ petition. The arrears payable to both the petitioners in pursuance of the order shall be paid to them within two months of the date of presentation of the copy of this order. The respondents shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum in case payment is not made within two months. As far as regularisation is concerned, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law, for regularisation of service, within three months." 3. It is necessary to point out that in the Writ petition, the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan and Superintendent, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur were parties. A show-cause notice was issued by the Court on 27.3.90 calling upon the non-petitioners to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. Time was taken on behalf of the non-petitioners on 31.8.90, 5.11.90 and 7.11.90 to file the reply. No reply was however, filed by the non-petitioners. 4. In the Contempt Petition the petitioners have asserted that they had submitted a copy of the order of the Court to the non-petitioners on 25.2.90, but the order dated 30.1.91 passed by the Court was not compiled with within the stipulated period. The petitioners served a notice dated 5.9.91 through their counsel by registered A.D. post and the same has been served on both the non-petitioners. Despite the notice of the counsel no action has been taken by the non-petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that notwithstanding full knowledge of the Court's order, the non-petitioners have intentionally and deliberately not complied with the Court's order. Thus, they are guilty of contempt of Court and are liable to be punished. 5. The Contempt Petition was admitted on 11.10.91. The case of the petitioners is that notwithstanding full knowledge of the Court's order, the non-petitioners have intentionally and deliberately not complied with the Court's order. Thus, they are guilty of contempt of Court and are liable to be punished. 5. The Contempt Petition was admitted on 11.10.91. Counsel for the non-petitioner's sought six weeks time to file reply to the contempt petition. A reply dated 13.1.92 has been filed purporting to be on behalf of both the non-petitioners. Although it is supported by an affidavit of the non-petitioner No. 2 alone. A reference in this reply has been made to documents 1 and 2, but, the same were not filed with the reply. Subsequently, an application dated 4.2.92 has been filed on behalf of the non-petitioners. 6. In the first reply, which is supported by the affidavit of non-petitioner No. 2, it has not been disputed that the writ petition was filed by the petitioners claiming payment of salary in the regular pay scale of the post of Helper and for regularisation of their services on the said post. It has also been admitted that this Writ Petition has been allowed by the High Court on 30.1.91 and the directions as reproduced in para 2 of the Contempt Petition was issued by the Court. Contents of para 3 of the Contempt Petition which contains statement that the copy of the order dated 30.1.91 has been served on both the non-petitioners on 25.2.91, have also not been disputed. In para 4 of the reply it has been stated that the order for compliance of the order of the Court has been issued. In para 5 of the reply it has been stated that there was no malafide intention, ulterior motive or wilful negligence on the part of the answering respondents and that the contemners are always willing to comply with the orders of this Hon'ble Court and to abide by it, but even if this Court feels that any contempt has been committed by the contemners, they tender unconditional apology. 7. As already noticed, this reply is not supported by any affidavit of non-petitioner No. 1. 7. As already noticed, this reply is not supported by any affidavit of non-petitioner No. 1. So far as non-petitioner No. 2 is concerned, in his affidavit, he has stated that the contents of para 1 to 6 of the reply are true and correct to his personal knowledge based on official record as well as on legal advice tendered by his counsel, which he believes to be true and correct. 8. In the application dated 4.2.92 it has been stated that affidavit of non-petitioner No. 1 could not be annexed inadvertently. It has then been stated that payment of the arrears has been made to the non-petitioners on 10.1.92 and that document could not be filed along with the reply inadvertently. It has also been stated that sanction for making payment to the petitioners was issued on 24.10.91. In para-5 of the application the following statement has been given: "It is true the compliance of order has taken some time because of the reasons beyond the reach of the answering respondent for which the answering respondent feel sorry as there was no such intention to dis-obey the orders. The answering respondents are always willing to comply the orders of this Hon'ble Court and has compiled with the orders in bona fide manner. Even if any contempt is borne out against the answering respondent, he tenders his unconditional apology." 9. Regarding regularisation it has been stated that the whole matter for regularisation of daily wages employees is under process in between the. Medical Department, Finance Department and the Law Department. A copy of the proceedings has been enclosed as Annexure-7. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that even after filing two replies the non-petitioners have not been able to show that they have fully complied with the order dated 30.1.91. He submitted that payment of interest has not been made to the petitioners and no consideration of the case of the petitioners for regularisation in accordance with law has been made. He argued that the contents of the reply clearly establish that the non-petitioners did not take any steps for making payment of arrears of salary to the petitioners or for regularisation of their services within the stipulated time despite the fact that both of them were fully aware of the contents of the order of this Court. He argued that the contents of the reply clearly establish that the non-petitioners did not take any steps for making payment of arrears of salary to the petitioners or for regularisation of their services within the stipulated time despite the fact that both of them were fully aware of the contents of the order of this Court. He argued that the casual manner in which the replies have been filed and which are not even supported by proper affidavits clearly show that the apology tendered by non-petitioners is not in fact an apology but merely a device to get the contempt proceedings dropped. Non-petitioners have not sincerely and in a bonafide manner compiled with the Court's order. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners, on the other hand, argued that since the non-petitioners have now complied with the Court's order, the proceedings of the contempt may be dropped. Despite a quarry made by the Court at the time of hearing, learned counsel for non-petitioners could not show if the payment of interest has been made to the petitioners. He also could not show any document containing consideration of the candidature of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. 11. The law of contempt of court in the modern sense as developed in our country is on the pattern of English law. Since to punish contempt was an inherent power in England with all the courts of record, as soon as courts of record were established in India under different charters the power to punish contempt was necessarily given to these courts. When the Constitution of India came into force in the year 1950, some provisions relating to contempt matters were also included in it. The contempt of the Supreme Court and High Court as topics for Legislation have been mentioned in the Union list and Concurrent list. In the year 1952, the Parliament enacted the 'Contempt of Courts Act, 1952'. After examining the law of contempt, which developed during a period of almost two decades after coming into force of the Constitution, the Parliament enacted the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Under the Act of 1971, the term 'Contempt' has been defined in Section 2. For the purpose of this case it would be appropriate to quote Section 2(a) and (b): "2. Under the Act of 1971, the term 'Contempt' has been defined in Section 2. For the purpose of this case it would be appropriate to quote Section 2(a) and (b): "2. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires, (a) "Contempt of Court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt; (b) "Civil Contempt" means, wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an under-taking given to a court." 12. This definition is in consonance with the views expressed by the English and Indian Courts from time to time and the Parliament in India has tried to give a concrete shape to the law of contempt by enacting Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The object of contempt proceedings is primarily to protect the public confidence in the system of administration of justice. In Brahm Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 10 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court under-lined the object of contempt proceedings in the following words: "The summary jurisdiction exercised by superior courts in punishing con,tempt of their authority exists for the purpose of preventing interference with the course of justice and for maintaining the authority of law as is administered in the courts. The object of contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to Judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals, it is intended to be a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected if by the act or conduct of any party, the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by it is weakened." 13. In Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and others, AIR 1970 SC 1767 , the Supreme Court has observed as under: "The contempt proceedings against a person who has failed to comply with the courts order serves a dual purpose: (1) Vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct and (2) decision to compel the contemner to do what the law requires of him." 14. In Advocate General, Bijar v. Madhya Pradesh, Khair Industries, (1980) 3 SCC 311 , the Supreme Court held: "......it may be necessary to punish as a contempt, a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends it pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. The Court has the power to commit for contempt of court, not in order to protect the dignity of the court against insult or injury as the expression "contempt of Court" may seem to suggest, but to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interferred with. "It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law, in its active manifestation against obstruction and outrage."(Per Frankfurter, J., in Offutt v. U.S., (1954) 345 US 11 ). 15. In Hedkinson v. Hedkinson, (1952) 2 All.E.R. 567 , it has been held: "It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against or in respect of whom the order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until the order is discharged. The un-compromised nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the persons affected by the order believes it to be irregular or even void." 16. Again in Jennison v. Backer, AIR 1972 (1) All.E.R. 997 Curtish Releigh, J. observed: "The law should not be seen to sit by simply, while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection loose hope." 17. In Bardkanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit, AIR 1972 SC 2466 , the Supreme Court observed as under:- "The contempt of court is disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to the authority, justice, dignity thereof. It signifies a wilful disregard or disobedience of the court's order. It also signifies such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute (vide 17 Corpus Juris Secundum pages 5 and 6; Contempt by Edward N. Dancel (1939) Edn. page 14, Oswald's Contempt of Court (1910) Edn. pages 5 and 6)." 18. These authorities clearly show that every one whosoever high, he may be, is bound to carry out the courts order. page 14, Oswald's Contempt of Court (1910) Edn. pages 5 and 6)." 18. These authorities clearly show that every one whosoever high, he may be, is bound to carry out the courts order. The order passed by a court of contempt jurisdiction is binding on all concerned. Those who disregard the Court's order, do so at their own peril. No one can think himself above the law and the court is under a duty to see that confidence of the public in the institution of courts is not shaken by the executive authorities by their disregard to the orders of the Court. 19. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the non-petitioners have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court. The term 'wilful' has not been defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 'Wilful' according to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fifty Edition, implies nothing blamable, but merely that the person of whose action or default the expression is used is a free agent, and that what has been done arises from the spontaneous action of his 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. 20. According to Black's Law Dictionary (Revised 4th Edition), 'willfulness' 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 consequences. 21. In Stancomb v. Trowbridge Urban District Council, (1910) 2 Ch. 21. In Stancomb v. Trowbridge Urban District Council, (1910) 2 Ch. 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 Fairclough v. Manchester Ship Canal Company ." 22. This view was followed by house of Lords in Heaons Transport Ltd. v. Transport and General Workers Union, 1972 (3) All ER 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 casual, accidental or unintentional." In 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 act in breach of the injunction, there is a wilful disobedience of the order and it will 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 principles 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." 23. 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. 24. In the present case, no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the non-petitioners for non compliance of the order of the Court dated 30.1.91. The Court had intentionally fixed the time only from the date of presentation of the copy of the Court's order. The petitioners have asserted and, this assertion of the petitioners have not been disputed that the copy of the order was served on both the non-petitioners in the month of February 1991. What actions have been taken by the non-petitioners for carrying out the Court's order within the specified period, have not at all been disclosed to the Court. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that the non-petitioners did not take any step to comply with the Court's order within the time stipulated in the order. What actions have been taken by the non-petitioners for carrying out the Court's order within the specified period, have not at all been disclosed to the Court. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that the non-petitioners did not take any step to comply with the Court's order within the time stipulated in the order. Even if the notice of contempt had been served, they have not given effect to the directions of the Court regarding consideration of the cases of the petitioners and have not paid interest to the petitioners. Letter Annexures-7A and 7B which has been filed on record along with the application dated 4.2.92 do not show that any consideration has been made to the cases of the petitioners for regularisation. These letters do not even contain a reference of the Court's order so far as the petitioners are concerned. It is, therefore, clear that even as on date of filing of the Contempt Petition, the non-petitioners have not complied with the Court's order. The non-petitioner No. 1 is holding the office of the Secretary, Medical and Health Department and, therefore, it was his duty and responsibility to have seen that the order of the High Court has been given effect to promptly. I must hasten to add that whenever the Court fixes a time for implementation of its order, the order must be given effect to within the specified time unless it is stayed by a Larger Bench or a higher Court in an appeal etc. Even in cases where no time limit is fixed, the order passed by the Court must be implemented within reasonable time. If a particular departmental authority feels any difficulty on account of procedural requirements, the only option open for it is to seek extension of time for implementation of the Court's order. The departmental authorities cannot take upon this task of extending by the time limit merely by asserting that the matter was referred to one or the other Department of the Government. No Department of the Government has got any jurisdiction to extend the time limit of the Court by mere inaction or omission. The authorities in the Government cannot sit over the matter and on receipt of the contempt notice come forward with the plea of exchange of correspondence between the Departments. No Department of the Government has got any jurisdiction to extend the time limit of the Court by mere inaction or omission. The authorities in the Government cannot sit over the matter and on receipt of the contempt notice come forward with the plea of exchange of correspondence between the Departments. In the present case no application was filed by the non-petitioners seeking extension of time from the Court for compliance of the order. The payment of interest has been made only after the arguments were heard and order was reserved on 10.02.92. Therefore, in my considered opinion, they are clearly guilty of having committed contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.Having held the non-petitioners guilty of contempt of court, I may now advert to the apology tendered by them. The contents of the paragraphs containing apology have already been referred to in the earlier part of this order but even after the issue of notice of contempt by the Court, the non-petitioners have not shown as to how they have considered the candidature of the petitioners for regularisation in accordance with law. They have not shown whether any consideration has at all been made in pursuance of the directions given by the Court. No explanation worth the name has been given for non-compliance of the order regarding grant of salary to the petitioners in the regular pay scale within the period of two months of the receipt of copy of the order of the Court and even this has not been indicated as to why interest at the rate of 12% had not been paid to the petitioners till 25.2.92. 25. The apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, apology is shorn of penitence. If apology is off erred at a time when the contemner finds that the Court is going to impose punishment it cease to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. ( Mulkh Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1972 ). The apology in a case of contempt is intended to a genuine expression of regret of the contemner who frankly admits his guilt and expresses contrition and seeks forgiveness. ( Jai Prakash Beni Prasad v. Ram Swarup, AIR 1958 Punjab 461 ). ( Mulkh Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1972 ). The apology in a case of contempt is intended to a genuine expression of regret of the contemner who frankly admits his guilt and expresses contrition and seeks forgiveness. ( Jai Prakash Beni Prasad v. Ram Swarup, AIR 1958 Punjab 461 ). The apology is acceptable if it is bona-fide and genuinely made as a measure of atonement but if apology is tendered merely as pretext to escape consequences of the contumacious act in contempt proceedings, it cannot be accepted as of right ( Kallo Mal v. State of U.P., 1974 Cr. L.J. 529 ). In Laxmi Narain v. Mira Rani, 1984 Cr. L.J. 1033 , the Calcutta High Court expressed concern about the manner in which the orders of the Court are being flouted in the hope that if necessary at the last moment by tendering apologies the contemners would be excused of any acts of violation, if found guilty.The Court observed as under : "It seems that the trend of today is more to disregard the orders of court than to comply with the same with the belief that apologies tendered at the time of hearing will condone all acts of the contemnor. The time has come when it must be made clear to the litigant public and all, that when a direction is given and orders are made, the Court's order are required to be carried out to their fullest extent and any wilful disregard to the same will not be tolerated by a court of law and severe consequence will follow if orders are found to have been violated." 26. Since the non-petitioners have not fully complied with the Court's order even till this date, the apology tendered by the non-petitioners cannot be accepted as a bona fide expression of regret. The apology has been tendered only with a view to escape the liability. The only direction which the Court has given was regarding consideration of the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. No direction had been given by the Court to give regular appointment to the petitioners straight away. The non-petitioners have not shown as to how they were prevented from considering the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. The total failure on the part of the non-petitioners is sufficient to reject the apology tendered by them. 27. No direction had been given by the Court to give regular appointment to the petitioners straight away. The non-petitioners have not shown as to how they were prevented from considering the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. The total failure on the part of the non-petitioners is sufficient to reject the apology tendered by them. 27. Since the non-petitioners have been held guilty of contempt of court and I have rejected their apology, I may now consider as to what punishment should be imposed on the non-petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the non-petitioners have not complied with the order fully even till this day, ends of justice would be met if a penalty of fine is imposed on the non-petitioner No.1. A penalty of fine of Rs.1,000/- is accordingly imposed on Non-petitioner No.1. So far as Non-petitioner No.2 is concerned, he stood transferred from the Office of the Superintendent, during pendency of contempt proceedings. Therefore, it would be sufficient to administer an admonition to Non-petitioner No.2 to be careful in future. If the non-petitioners still do not comply with Court's Court (sic 'order) regarding consideration of the case of the petitioners within eight weeks, the petitioners shall be free to again approach the Court for appropriate orders. 28. The petitioners, who are low paid employees have been put to unnecessary expenses in filing this petition therefore, it is a fit case in which they should get costs. Accordingly, the non-petitioners are directed to pay cost of Rs.2000/- to the petitioner.Contempt Petition Disposed of Accordingly. *******