ORDER 1. Criminal Appeals Nos. 709-10 of 1990 at the instance of S.P. Nanda and other officers of the Orissa State Financial Corporation and Criminal Appeals Nos. 48-49 of 1991 by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and others have a common object to achieve, inasmuch as the orders of the High Court of Orissa passed in contempt proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") are sought to be quashed and, in the alternative, for substantial modification. 2. It appears that in a bunch of writ petitions, the High Court vide its judgment dated 11-1-1990 granted two reliefs to the writ petitioners, i.e., (i) to grant them wages as ad hoc employees on a par with regular employees; and (ii) directing the Corporation to frame a scheme to envisage absorption of the writ petitioners to the regular service. Since there were no clear-cut directions to keep the writ petitioners on roll pending preparation of the scheme and consideration of absorption, some orders came to be passed by the Orissa State Financial Corporation terminating the services of some of the writ petitioners but some orders were recalled on making fresh appointments. On contempt petitions being moved, the High Court viewed the matter with some seriousness and came to the conclusion that the termination of services of some of the writ petitioners was "revengeful", and that the belated compliance of the orders of restoring them back to their jobs, attracted special costs to be awarded to the contempt petitioners. The measure fixed for the purpose was Rs 2500 each. These special costs were ordered to be borne by the officers of the Corporation and not by the Corporation itself. These multiple views are the subject-matter of these appeals. 3. We have heard learned counsel. It is plain that the sum of Rs 2500 awarded to each contempt petitioner, numbering 30, is the sum total of two heads of reckoning, namely, (i) revengeful termination of services- Rs 2000 each and (ii) for delayed observance- Rs 500 each. As has been hinted earlier, nowhere had the High Court been specific that the succeeding writ petitioners had to be kept in service pending preparation of the scheme and consideration of their absorption. As has been hinted earlier, nowhere had the High Court been specific that the succeeding writ petitioners had to be kept in service pending preparation of the scheme and consideration of their absorption. We feel that the High Court took rather a strict and an uncalled for view in insisting reinstatement of the writ petitioners and holding them entitled to special damages @ Rs 2000 each for revengeful termination. This part of the order from any angle appears to us to be unsustainable. There is nothing which the appellants can say against the orders imposing Rs 500 per person as costs for delayed compliance. That part of the order needs to be and is hereby sustained. Still, since these workers have been dragged to this Court, we strike somewhat a balance between the two and modify the order to sustain payment of Rs 1000 only to each contempt petitioner as special costs not only for delayed compliance but also for the costs incurred in this Court. The impugned order of the High Court would thus be substituted by this order of payment of Rs 1000 each. 4. When in the writ petition, no direction had been given to keep providing the writ petitioners the jobs they were said to be holding, or to have ever held, it was beyond the power of the High Court in a contempt petition to have ordered the contempt petitioners to be given jobs pending preparation of the scheme and their consideration for absorption in the jobs should the scheme be covering the subject. That part of the order of the High Court would necessarily have to be upset. We do so accordingly. 5. Next comes the question as to who should bear the costs. The High Court has deduced from the conduct of the officers, some amount of malice to have stood in the way of its order being implemented as was expected. We, however, in the facts and the circumstances, feel that the conduct of the officers of the Corporation (appellants in Criminal Appeals Nos. 709-10 of 1990) could not ever be termed as lacking bona fide and a prudent and cautious officer would have reacted in the manner as the officers did in the interest of the Corporation. We, however, in the facts and the circumstances, feel that the conduct of the officers of the Corporation (appellants in Criminal Appeals Nos. 709-10 of 1990) could not ever be termed as lacking bona fide and a prudent and cautious officer would have reacted in the manner as the officers did in the interest of the Corporation. Therefore, in their having acted for and on behalf of the Corporation in a manner expected of them, there was hardly any cause existing for contempt. That seems to be the reason why the High Court has nowhere recorded their conviction under Section 12 of the Act. The proceedings were rather given a turn more to awarding damages/costs and that too without converting the figurearrived into that of fine as a measure of punishment. What directly has not been achieved, should not be allowed to be achieved indirectly. The order of the High Court, thus, in putting the blame on the officers personally, appears to us to be erroneous, deserving to be upset. The liability would, thus, not remain personal to the officers but would be that of the Corporation towards payment of special costs which course the rules framed by the High Court permit. 6. By granting the aforesaid reliefs to the appellants and the modifications as spelled out, these appeals are allowed. No other order seems to be necessary - incidental or consequential - to be passed in these matters. The appeals, thus, would stand disposed of. SLP(C) No.... of 1991 (CC 12704 of 1991) and CA No. 1760 of 1991 7. Mr Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners/appellants, prays for the disposal of these matters as withdrawn since in his view it would be apt for the petitioners/appellants to seek appropriate relief from the High Court which is in seisin of the matter and so is the Committee appointed by the High Court to go into the desirability and feasibility of the scheme. Mr Ganguli prays for and is granted permission to move the High Court for the purpose. These matters also shall stand disposed of accordingly. For Citation: 1995 (Supp) (3) SCC 188