G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19133 of 1991 was filed by Dr. Subhas Chandra, petitioner on 17. 7. 91 with a prayer that court may issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus com manding respondents-authorities to pay the petitioner the entire arrears of salary with in the time limit prescribed by the court and further to direct them to go on paying his salary and allowances, for which he is en titled to as a Lecturer, under the provisions of law and further he wanted a writ, direc tion or order in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Principal-respondent No. 5 not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as a Lecturer in Sri Bhola Nath Sarraf Inter College, Jagner, Agra and dis charge of the duties attached thereto in any manner. The main allegation are that in the aforesaid college, both girls and boys get education up to Intermediate. The U. P. Madhyamic Siksha Sewa Ayog finally selected the petitioner as a Lecturer on 7. 8. 84 in the Economics Deptt. He joined his duties, but that too, as a result of his filing writ Petition No. 2059 of 1985, in which a mandamus was issued on 15. 12. 85. The Court directed the Committee of Management of the said Institution and its Manager to issue the letter of appointment in pursuance of the recommendation made by the Commission with in two weeks from the date of the order. But respondents No. 2 to 4 did not issue the appointment letter. Then a contempt petition was moved and by virtue of the Courts order, he was allowed to join as a Lecturer in Economics w. e. f. 23. 6. 85. Respondents put every possible hurdles to dissuade the petitioner from joining or leaving the college soon after joining. The petitioner completed his probation without any blemish but the Prin cipal did not recommend for his promotion till the date of filing of the petition. The petitioner stood confirmed ipso facto w. e. f. 23. 3. 86. The respondents tried to put hindrance on numerous occasions and the petitioner had to move police and other authorities of law to rescue him from the onslaught of the respondents. The petitioner stood confirmed ipso facto w. e. f. 23. 3. 86. The respondents tried to put hindrance on numerous occasions and the petitioner had to move police and other authorities of law to rescue him from the onslaught of the respondents. The petitioner did not voluntarily agree in the respondents efforts to grab the money of the College and students, therefore, they with held his salary w. e. f. February, 1991. Despite several efforts, they did not release his salary. Even some physical assualts on him took place. Due to personal work, the petitioner took 10 days leave. But on return on 30. 4. 91 he was not permitted to join his duties. On 5. 5. 91, the respondents tried to physically assault the petitioner. 2. The joint account of the college is being operated signgly by the District In spector of Schools (D. I. O. S. ). The D. I. O. S directed on 30. 7. 91 to the Principal of the college to prepare his bills and send to him (D. I. O. S.) for passing. Even then, respon dents did not yield. Therefore, the petitio ner had to file that writ petition. The peti tion prayed in the stay application that the interim order restraining the Principal of Sri Bhola Nath Sarraf Inter College, Jagner, Agra be passed, not to interfere in the func tioning of the petitioner as a Lecturer in the aforesaid college and further direct them to pay the petitioner the entire arrears of salary and pay him his regular salary in fu ture with in the time specified by this Court. 3. On 26. 8. 91 the court ordered the respondents to pay the entire amount of salary and other allowances due to the petitioners till date with in a month of the presentation of a certified copy of this Courts order. They were further directed to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as a Lecturer. 4. That order was served on the respon dents legally, but they did not comply with the Courts order. Hence this contempt petition dated 13. 4. 86 was moved by the petitioner on 17. 6. 96. 5. They were further directed to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as a Lecturer. 4. That order was served on the respon dents legally, but they did not comply with the Courts order. Hence this contempt petition dated 13. 4. 86 was moved by the petitioner on 17. 6. 96. 5. In this contempt petition, which is directed against Sri Ram Prakash Pal, Ac counts Officer in the Office of the D. I. O. S. , Agra, when he joined his duties in the month of July, 1995, his attention was in vited to the High Courts order calling upon him to release the salary of the petitioner. The D. I. O. S. vide his letter dated 28. 11. 95, clearly directed the respondents to pay regularly the salary of the petitioner and its arrears. Thus complying with the order of the High Court the D. I. O. S. directed the respondent aforesaid to make payments to the petitioner. But he did not relent. Several reminders were sent to him. However the salary from March, 1994 to October, 1994 was paid on 10. 1. 95 by the predecessor of the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner is regularly submitting his salary bill. But that has not been passed by the respondents. This way, the respondent has been deliberately disobeying this Courts order. , Hence he should be punished for commit ting the contempt of this Court. 6. In his counter affidavit dated 22. 7. 96, the respondent admits that he took over charge as an Accounts Officer in the office of the D. I. O. S. , Agra in July, 1995 and since then, he is discharging his duties as such. Since he was not a party to the main writ petition and no direction was given to him by the High Court, therefore he feels that he is not bound by that order. Further, he has alleged that the bills for payment along with the certificate of the petitioners doing his duty, shall be sent by the Principal, duly counter signed by the Manager, then only he may start complying with the order of this court. In absence of this recommen dation by the Principal as well as Manager of the Institution, he could do nothing. In absence of this recommen dation by the Principal as well as Manager of the Institution, he could do nothing. In absence of said order by the D. I. O. S. , the payment of the petitioner was stopped since November, 1994 and an order was passed by the D. I. O. S. on 28. 11. 95 endorsing its copy to the Principal as well as Manager. Immedi ately after receiving this letter dated 28. 11. 95 from the D. I. O. S. , the deponent directed the Principal and the Manager of the Institution in question to prepare the salary bills of the petitioner according to the rules. They did not comply Then the respondent brought this fact to the notice of the D. I. O. S seeking further instructions from him. He admits that the Institutions accounts were being singly operated by the D. I. O. S. Since proper instructions had not been issued by the D. I. O. S. , here fore, respondent has been unable to comply with the Courts order. 7. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner on 7. 8. 96. He has alleged that on the specific order dated 19. 4. 93 (Annexure 2), the Accounts Officer of the office of the D. I. O. S. (respondent) was specifically directed to make payment of salary, its ar rears and maintain the records of the same. Even then due compliance was not made. However, the salary from March to May 1993 was paid on 25. 10. 93. For June and July 1993, the payment was made on 1. 11. 93. The salary from August, 1993 to January1994 was paid on 6. 4. 94. The salary for February, 1994 has not been paid so far. The salary from March, 1994 to August, 1994 was paid on 10. 1. 95 and for September, 1994 to October, 1994 was paid on 10. 1. 1995. Thus the salary from November, 1994 is outstanding along with the salary of. February, 1994. In support of its, the petitioner has filed photo state copies of the cheques (R. A. 1. to R. A. 6.) stressing that under the rules of single operation, these cheques had been issued by the Accounts Officer alone. 1. 1995. Thus the salary from November, 1994 is outstanding along with the salary of. February, 1994. In support of its, the petitioner has filed photo state copies of the cheques (R. A. 1. to R. A. 6.) stressing that under the rules of single operation, these cheques had been issued by the Accounts Officer alone. The trust of the rejoinder affidavit is that despite several applications and existence of knowledge with the respon dent, he has intentionally flouted the courts order and had ensured non- payment of his salary to him 8. This fact is now established that on 26. 8. 91, this Court directed the respondents to pay the entire amount of salary and other allowances due to the petitioner till date with in a "month of the presentation of cer tified copy of this Courts order. The respondents No. 3 and 4 (Manager and Prin cipal) were further directed to ensure that the petitioner is allowed to discharge his duties in the college. It is again admitted that the copy of the order passed by the court was sent to all the respondents and despite that, they have not faithfully com plied with the direction. The petitioner was compelled to move the Writ Petition No. 2059 of 1994. As noted above, an order of same nature was passed on 15. 2. 84 as referred to in paragraph 5 of the main writ petition. It is again admitted that despite repeated efforts and directions, the salary up to October 1994 were paid most reluc tantly by the respondents. Salary for February and for the period November, 1994 is still due. It is further admitted that the respondent has full knowledge of the courts order noted above and repeatedly the petitioner has been writing to the respondents. Annexure 5 to the contempt petition is the letter dated 4. 1. 96 written by the respondents that his salary has been unlawfully and illegally with held. Even the D. I. O. S has sent a letter dated 28. 11. 95 to the Principal, Manager of the aforesaid College, endorsing a copy there of to the Dy. Director of Education (Madhyamic), (sic) Education Directorate, Allahabadand the respondent to ensure the payment as directed by the High Court otherwise con tempt procedure would have to be adopted by the court. 11. 95 to the Principal, Manager of the aforesaid College, endorsing a copy there of to the Dy. Director of Education (Madhyamic), (sic) Education Directorate, Allahabadand the respondent to ensure the payment as directed by the High Court otherwise con tempt procedure would have to be adopted by the court. The D. I. O. S. Agra issued in structions to the respondent to make pay ment. But he did not pay the same. . 9. Another letter dated 16. 3. 96 was sent by the petitioner (Annexure 5c) that he should make payment and follow the courts order. Annexure 5d is a letter dated 12. 3. 96 by the petitioner to the respondent with the same prayer. But it was not com plied with. Perhaps the respondent thinks that his writing to the DIOS and the Prin cipal to follow their part of the duty was a sufficient compliance of this Courts order. Unfortunately and regretably, it is not so. In this very perspective, the letter dated 7. 12. 95 (Annexure C. A. I.) can be viewed. In the letter dated 16. 4. 96 (Annexure C. A 2), the respondent wrote to the DIOS that he has directed the Institution (Manager and Principal) to make available the documents for payments. But they have not followed. He further admits that u/s. (1) of Payment of Salary Act, 1971, the account is being operated singly. Therefore, it is the liability of the respondents, including the D. I. O. S. to make payment to the petitioner. Even then knowing it fully well that it was their duty to make payment to the respondents, they have not done so so far. The papers relating to the earlier payments made under the salary head and signed by the lekhadhikari (Annexure RA1 to R. A. 6) have been filed. But instead of taking any lesson from his predecessors conduct, the respondent did not arrange for making payments and went on practising his dialatory tactics. 10. Letter dated 28. 11. 95 (Annexure 6 to the contempt petition) was sent by the D. I. O. S. to the Principal/manager and the respondent Lekhadhikari. It was clearly stated that despite repeated orders of the High Court, the payments are not being made to the petitioner. Due to this failure on their part, the petitioner has been com pelled to file the contempt petition before the High Court. It was clearly stated that despite repeated orders of the High Court, the payments are not being made to the petitioner. Due to this failure on their part, the petitioner has been com pelled to file the contempt petition before the High Court. Therefore, payment of salary should be ensured to the petitioner and he should be allowed to work in the Institution otherwise the court may adopt tough measures in the contempt proceed ings. A specific direction was issued in the same letter to the respondent to ensure the payment to the petitioner regularly, includ ing the arreas otherwise he will be respon sible for committing the contempt of the High Court. Thus there is a clear direction by the D. I. O. S. , to the respondent to make payment. Admittedly single operation pro cedure was there. Therefore, it was man datory on the part of the respondents to have complied with the direction of the D. I. O. S. and made payments irrespective of the fact that the certificate and bills had not been sent by the Principal and Manager. Instead, he should have made payments on the basis of past records available in the office, including the quantum of Salary paid to the petitioner. The respondent did not comply with this direction. His attention was repeatedly drawn by the petitioner thro ugh repeated letters, including last one dt. 12. 3. 96 (Annexure 5d) referred to above. 11. It is not a fact that the respondent did not know his responsibility and the fact that he was bound to comply with the order of the D. I. O. S. . (Annexure IV to the con tempt petition ). By letter dated 28. 11. 95, the respondent wrote a letter to the Prin cipal/manager requiring them to follow their duties. He sent a copy of that letter (Annexure C. A. 1) to the D. I. O. S. that the respondents Principal and Manager had not complied with his request and had not sent the bills. Therefore, it was essential now for the D. I. O. S. as well as respondent Lekhad hikari them selves to make payment from their leval. Again the letter C. A. 2, dated 16. 4. 96, the respondent wrote to the D. I. O. S: with reference to his letter dated 28. Therefore, it was essential now for the D. I. O. S. as well as respondent Lekhad hikari them selves to make payment from their leval. Again the letter C. A. 2, dated 16. 4. 96, the respondent wrote to the D. I. O. S: with reference to his letter dated 28. 11, 95 that the Principal and Manager were not complying with his request to send the documents and since single operation procedure was in operation in respect to this Institution, therefore, it has become a duty of this office (office of the D. I. O. S.) Lekhadhikari) to make payment. But he still did not make the payment. 12. This way, it is clearly established that the respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order of this court. He has also ignored the direction of the D. I. O. S. dated 28. 11. 95 (Annexure 4 to the contempt petition ). So it shows his intransigent and calculatedly very callous and disrespectful behaviour towards the High Courts order. He is a very senior officer who would not have put in less than 10 years of service to his credit. So, he is prima facie and reasonably expected to know the consequence of this wilful disobe dience. Hence I take a very serious view of his misconduct in intentionally disobeying the orders of his Court. His conditional apo logy, which is merely an eye wash and a device to escape from the natural conseque nces of his willful default, deserves to be re jected with condemnation it deserves beca use in every letter of his counter affidavit, he has tried to justify himself and his conduct. 13. Taking the totality of the cir cumstances into consideration and the fact that a tendency is unfortunately growing in the public mind, specially on the Govt. Of ficers that this courts order can be ignored, defied and disobeyed in the manner they like. Hence the time has come when this court should take a serious view of the mat ter in order to restore the dignity of this Court and the orders passed by it. 14. The respondents Sri Ram Prakash Pal, Accounts Officer in the Office of the D. I. O. S. , Agra is here by held guilty on the charge of committing wilful contempt of this Courts order. 14. The respondents Sri Ram Prakash Pal, Accounts Officer in the Office of the D. I. O. S. , Agra is here by held guilty on the charge of committing wilful contempt of this Courts order. He is sentenced to under go 4 months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. l. 000/- On failure to pay the line, further one months Simple Imprison ment will have to be undergone by him. He is not present in the Court. He shall be taken into custody atonce to serve out the sen tence. Simultaneously, it is directed that the D. I. O. S. , Agra shall arrange to make pay ment of the entire arrears as well as continue to make payment of current months with in a period of one month from today. He shall report compliance positively by 10. 10. 96, faling which a stern action under the provisions of law may have to be taken against him. Dt. 10. 9. 1996. Sd/g. S. N. Tripathi The contemnor Sri Ram Prakash Pal, despite order of the court to be present today in the court he has not cared to be present today here. The C. J. M. Agra is directed to take him into custody immediately by issuing a non-bailable warrant against him and ar range to produce him before this court on or by 25. 9. 96 in custody or send him to local jail and send an information to this court. Petition allowed. .