JUDGMENT : A.N. Gupta 1. This case is a stark example not only of executive excess depriving a citizen of the fruits of a long drawn litigation but also the manner in which the order of this court are not obeyed in spirit. This case is unfortunate in another respect inasmuch as this contempt application moved in the year 1984 has come up for disposal before me after a lapse of about a decade. 2. The applicant belongs to Provincial Medical Service of State of U. P. and was appointed in the year 1960. He was entitled to do private practice including the practice of giving treatment to the Central Government employees and their families for which he was getting fees from them. The Director of Medical Health and Family welfare, U. P. Lucknow, who is opposite party no. 4 to the contempt application, issued a circular dated 7-12-1966 prohibiting the applicant from giving general treatment to the employees of the Central Government and their familities. For depriving the applicant from getting the benefit of fee etc. from the treatment of the Central Government employees and their families, the applicant was entitled to get compensation from the State Government under Rule 27 of the U. P. Medical Services Rules. The case of the applicant, was and is, that by this prohibition he suffered a monetary loss of Rs. 1500/- per month. The applicant filed writ petition no. 2052 of 1971 challenging the validity of the said prohibition put on him. The writ petition was allowed on 12-11-1971 in which a mandamus was issued in the following terms :- "In the view I take, I cannot grant the prayers in terms in which the petitioner has sought, but as the State Government has curtailed some right of private practice of the petitioner, I direct the State Government to pay to the petitioner, such compensatory allowance for corresponding loss of private practice as the State Government may decide from the date on which the right of private practice of the petitioner has been curtailed by the circular letter of the Director of Health Service, dated December 7, 1966. No order as to costs." Against that order the State Government filed Special Appeal no. 784 of 1971 which was dismissed on 14-5-1973 ordering that the applicant was entitled to get compensation. No order as to costs." Against that order the State Government filed Special Appeal no. 784 of 1971 which was dismissed on 14-5-1973 ordering that the applicant was entitled to get compensation. Thereafter the State Government went up to the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition which was dismissed. Since the order awarding compensation to the applicant was not implemented, the applicant preferred a contempt application but the Government determined the compensation at the rate Rs. 0.99 per day. The applicant was dissatisfied with this paltry sum and, therefore, he filed another writ petition no. 11873 of 1975, contending that he was entitled to compensation at the rate Rs. 1500/- per month. That said writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 10-9-1980. This Court after considering the entire evidence tendered before it by both the parties by means of a well reasoned and detailed judgment held that the rate of compensation of 0.99 paisa per day was wholly illusory and the loss to the applicant was near about Rs. 1500/- per month. This would be clear from following portion of the judgment :- "In view of the averments contained in the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, we accept that the petitioner's income from private practice relating to Central Government employees and their families at Moradabad and Bareilly, before it was banned by the Government's order dated 7th December, 1966 was near about Rs. 1,500/- per month." The Court further held and observed as follows : "We accordingly hold that the compensation payable to the petitioner under Government letters (Annexures I and 'II' of the supplementary counter affidavit of Kishori Lal) is wholly illusory and that, in determining the compensation as specified in the said letter, the State Government has neither discharged its obligation under Rule 27 not it has complied with the direction issued by the Court in writ petition no. 2052 of 1971." 3. The operative portion of the order passed in the said writ petition was as follows :- "This writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The orders of the respondent no. 1 dated 29-8-1974 and 25-9-1974 (Annexure 'I' and 'II' to the supplementary counter affidavit of Kishori Lal) are quashed and it is hereby directed that the respondents shall re-determine the compensatory allowance payable to the petitioner under rule 27. The orders of the respondent no. 1 dated 29-8-1974 and 25-9-1974 (Annexure 'I' and 'II' to the supplementary counter affidavit of Kishori Lal) are quashed and it is hereby directed that the respondents shall re-determine the compensatory allowance payable to the petitioner under rule 27. Since the matter is pending since a long time, the Government shall act expeditiously in the matter. In the particular circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs." 4. The period for which the compensation was to be determined is 7-12-1966 to 28-2-1973 and 1-1-1974 to 14-7-1974 which comes to 81 months and 10 days. Special Leave Petition No. 1301 of 1981 filed by the State Government against the judgment dated 10-9-1980 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 21-11-1983. After this contempt application was filed on 23-8-1984, the State Government re-determined the compensation by means of the G.O. dated 15-12-1984 at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month, observing that this has been done so after considering the documents and affidavits filed by the applicant and after looking into all the circumstances of the case. 5. In the contempt application the contention of the applicant is that inspite of the G.O. dated 15-12-1984 re-fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month only, the opposite party has committed contempt of this Court by disobeying the order dated 10-9-1980, wherein it was held that the amount of compensation comes to near about Rs. 1500/- per month. On the other hand the contention of the opposite parties and State Government in their counter affidavits and as urged by the learned Standing Counsel is that the operative portion of the order dated 10-9-1980 was that the Government had to redetermine the compensatory allowance payable to the applicant and since it has been done, the question of contempt of court does not arise. In other words the contention is that there was no direction in the operative portion of the judgment that the amount of compensation refixed at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month and, therefore, by re-fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month no contempt has been committed. 6. A perusal of the judgment dated 10- 9-1980 passed in writ petition no. 1500/- per month and, therefore, by re-fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month no contempt has been committed. 6. A perusal of the judgment dated 10- 9-1980 passed in writ petition no. 11873 of 1975 clearly shows that this court after considering the entire evidence before it which had been furnished by both the parties came to a categorical finding that the amount of compensation earlier fixed by the Government at the rate of 0.99 paise per day was wholly illusory and the applicant's income from the private practice relating to Central Government employees and their families at Moradabad and Bareilly was near about Rs. 1500/- per month. It is no doubt true that this Court stopped short of issuing a specific mandamus to that effect in the hope that the State Government would abide by its findings. Probably it was also on account of the fact that during those days when the writ jurisdiction was being evolved, the practice was not to grant affirmative relief by way of mandamus but leaving it to the authorities concerned to do so.. However, it does not mean that the minions of the State Government can sit over the findings recorded by this Court. In fact the G.O. dated 15th December, 1984 simply recites that after considering the documentary evidence and the affidavits furnished by the applicant and after looking into all the circumstances of the case the Government had come to the conclusion that there was justification to fix compensatory allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. This is despite a positive finding recorded by this Court in its judgment dated 10-9-1980. It is very significant to find that in paragraph 3 of the contempt application, the applicant has mentioned that his loss of private practice on account of the said ban imposed on him was Rs. 1500/- per month and Dr. P. C. Vyas, the then Director Medical and Health Services in his counter affidavit has admitted this. It is thus clear that the loss occasioned to the applicant was Rs. 1500/- per month and he was entitled to this compensation. Now the next question is what order should now be passed in this contempt matter. Dr. P. C. Vyas, who was Director, Medical, Health and Family Welfare, U. P. Lucknow has now retired. It is thus clear that the loss occasioned to the applicant was Rs. 1500/- per month and he was entitled to this compensation. Now the next question is what order should now be passed in this contempt matter. Dr. P. C. Vyas, who was Director, Medical, Health and Family Welfare, U. P. Lucknow has now retired. Sri Vinod Prakash Sawhney, the then Secretary of the Department is no longer on the post. After such a long lapse of time it does not appear practicable and no useful purpose would be served to call the retired officer or the officer who is no longer on the same post, to take punishment. 7. It was contended by the learned Standing Counsel that in a contempt matter it is not open to this Court to issue a specific direction to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month, which could be done only if the applicant would have filed a fresh writ petition. In this connection the following observation of the Supreme Court made in paragraph 5 of the judgment given in the case of The Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union, AIR 1970 SC 1767 , are material :- "Contempt proceedings against a person who has failed to comply with the Court's order serves a dual purpose-(0 Vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct, and (2) cocercion to compel the contemner to do what the law requires of him." In view of this one of the main purpose of the civil contempt is to get the order enforced. Apart from this, this Court is a Court of record possessing powers of contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. It is no doubt true that this Court does not possess the powers as are available to the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution but in contempt matters the order has to be got enforced and, therefore, it will be just and proper that instead of punishing the contemnors a direction is issued for compliance of the Judgment dated 10th September, 1980. 8. In view of the above the opposite party no. 1 and its Secretary in the Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare are directed to make payment of compensatory allowance to the applicant at the rate of Rs. 8. In view of the above the opposite party no. 1 and its Secretary in the Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare are directed to make payment of compensatory allowance to the applicant at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month for the period 7-12-1966 to 28-2-1973 and 1-1-1974 to 14-7-1974, after adjusting the payment already made to the applicant. The applicant shall further be entitled to get interest at the rate 6% per annum from the date it fell due to the date of payment. The said payment has to be made within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Secretary of the department concerned. The application is disposed of accordingly.