R. B. MEHROTRA, J. ( 1 ) APPLICANT Sri Anil Sharma fields writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14858 of 1992 impleading Joint Director (Training/apprenticeship), Meerut Division, Industrial Training Institute, Saket, Prabhat Nagar, Meerut and others. In the aforesaid writ petition, reliefs were prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order, dated 11-3-1992, filed as Annexure viii to the writ petition and for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to assign work to the petitioner and pay him due salary and for further direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in accordance with the decision taken at the meeting of respondents No. 1 and 2 and Additional, Director (Administration), Lucknow on 4-11-1991. ( 2 ) THE applicant earlier filed a writ petition in this Court in the year 1992. In the aforesaid writ petition, a relief was sought that since the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Junior Clerk, his services may be regularised. This Court, vide its order, dated 17/02/1992 disposed of the petitioners writ petition with a direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the said representation filed by the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE Principal of Industrial Training Institute, Meerut rejected the petitioners representation, by a bald order dated 11-3-1992, which was filed as Annexure viii to the Writ Petition and which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 14898 of 1992. ( 4 ) THE matter came up before this Court on 25-4-1992. The Court granted six weeks time to the Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit. Three weeks time was allowed to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit. The matter was to come up on 16-7- 1992. It was further observed in the said order that in pursuance of the mandamus issued by the Court to decide the representation a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the concerned authority has not applied his mind in passing the order. Specific averments in the counter affidavit will be made in this regard. " ( 5 ) DESPITE time having been granted, no counter affidavit was filed. The matter came up before the Court again on 16-7-1992. On the request of. the learned Standing Counsel, the Court further granted one months time for fling the counter affidavit and specifically stated that no further time will be given. " ( 5 ) DESPITE time having been granted, no counter affidavit was filed. The matter came up before the Court again on 16-7-1992. On the request of. the learned Standing Counsel, the Court further granted one months time for fling the counter affidavit and specifically stated that no further time will be given. It was a stop order. After passing the said order, the Court is not supposed to grant any further time to the concerned respondent. The matter was directed to come up on 18-8-1992. However, the matter did not come up on the date fixed instead it came up on 18-2-1993. finally decided the writ petition on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition and stated that despite time of one month having been granted by the Court on 16-7-1992 and it having been made clear that no further time is to be granted, no counter affidavit has been filed. In my detailed order, I held that the petitioners representation has been rejected by a bald order, dated 11-3-1992 which is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly I quashed the said order, dated 11-31992 by issuing a writ of certiorari. I further noticed in my judgment that the petitioner has stated that since October, 1991, the respondents are not permitting the petitioner to work nor are paying his salary and the respondents have not come forward to explain this arbitrary action despite time having been given several time by the Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, I decided the writ petition with a direction that till a legal reasoned order is passed terminating the petitioners services; petitioner should be permitted to work on his post and should be paid his salary since October, 1991 and further directed that till the petitioner continues to work on his post he would be paid his salary. The writ petition was decided in the aforesaid terms, vide my judgment. dated 18-2-1993. ( 6 ) THE aforesaid order passed by me was not complied with, consequent thereto, the petitioner moved present contempt application in this Court, impleading Sri. R. C. Virmani, Joint Director (Training/apprenticeship), Meerut Division, Industrial Training Institute, Saket, Prabhat Nagar, Meerut and Sri Madan Lal Goyal, Principal Industrial Training Institute, Saket Prabhat Nagar, Meerut. The Contempt Application came up before Honble S. C. Verma, J. on 16-4-1993. R. C. Virmani, Joint Director (Training/apprenticeship), Meerut Division, Industrial Training Institute, Saket, Prabhat Nagar, Meerut and Sri Madan Lal Goyal, Principal Industrial Training Institute, Saket Prabhat Nagar, Meerut. The Contempt Application came up before Honble S. C. Verma, J. on 16-4-1993. The Court was pleased to issue notice asking the opposite parties to appear in person in this Court on 18-5-1993. In the aforesaid contempt application, the applicant/petitioner stated that when the applicant went to present the certified copy of the order, dated 18-2-1993 of this Court, the opposite parties refused to accept either personally or through their staff and reprimanded the applicant and asked the applicant to get lost. The contempt application further states that the applicant was treated very badly for approaching to this Court for justice and the opposite parties refused to accept the order dated 18-2-1993. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicant sent the certified copy of the order of this Court along with an application on 1-3-1993 to both the opposite parties by registered post. Photo copies of the two registered letters sent along with the acknowledgment due have been filed along with the contempt petition. ( 7 ) IN reply to the aforesaid letter, Opposite party No. 1 sent a reply dated 22-3-1993 stating that "the judgment of the Honble High Court, dated 18-2-1993 has been received along with an application for joining the post. " Thereafter it was stated in the letter, dated 22-3-1993 that "your services were terminated by order, dated 5-10-1991 as daily wager since your services were no more required in the office which order was received by you. The same is again being sent to you. In accordance with the direction of the High Court, your services have been terminated by a written order, dated 5-10-91 according to law and no dues are payable to you. " ( 8 ) IN response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, Sri R. C. Virmani and Sri Madan Lal Goyal, opposite parties no. 1 and 2 have filed their counter affidavits in the contempt petition. An application has also been filed on 10-5-1993 for recalling my order, dated 18-2-1993 passed in the writ petition. " ( 8 ) IN response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, Sri R. C. Virmani and Sri Madan Lal Goyal, opposite parties no. 1 and 2 have filed their counter affidavits in the contempt petition. An application has also been filed on 10-5-1993 for recalling my order, dated 18-2-1993 passed in the writ petition. The application for recalling my order, dated 18-2-1993 was rejected by me on 19-7-1993 by a reasoned order wherein I stated that since the writ petition has been decided on merits, there is no occasion for recalling the aforesaid order. No reviewapplication has been moved for recalling such order. The contempt application came up before Honble R. R. K. Trivedi, J. on 19-8-1994. Therein the learned Standing Counsel made an incorrect statement that an application for recalling of the order, dated 18-2-1993 is already pending and on the basis of that incorrect statement; the Honble Judge directed that the matter may be listed before me along with the writ petition as the order of which the contempt was alleged is already under jeopardy as a recall application is pending. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Hon. Chief Justice after a lapse of 11 months. The Honble Chief Justice on 22-7-1995 directed the contempt matter to be placed before me. After two months thereof the matter was listed before me on 22-9-1995. I called for an explanation of the office as to why the matter was listed with such an inordinate delay and fixed the matter on 29-9-1995 along with the record of the writ petition. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties on, 29-9-1995, the judgment was reserved in the present matter. ( 10 ) AN application was moved on behalf of the Standing Counsel on 18-5-1993 seeking one months time for filing counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties. In reply to the contempt notice, the opposite parties have filed their reply affidavits which have been sworn on 15-6-1993. In the reply affidavits, the opposite parties have tried to justify the termination order of the applicant on merits on the ground that the applicant was appointed only for a fixed period. In reply to the contempt notice, the opposite parties have filed their reply affidavits which have been sworn on 15-6-1993. In the reply affidavits, the opposite parties have tried to justify the termination order of the applicant on merits on the ground that the applicant was appointed only for a fixed period. The counter affidavit further states that, however, the applicant was permitted to continue since after the fixed period, nobody came to join his post and the applicants services were terminated when the person under transfer from Agra came to join his services at Meerut. Thereafter, vide order dated 5-10-1991, the services of the applicant as a daily wage employee came to an end. ( 11 ) THE entire narration of facts demonstrates atleast one thing that the Government officers do not care either to follow the order or to give due regard to High Courts orders. It is also apparent from the attitude of the opposite parties officers that despite time having been granted to the Standing Counsel time and again, the counter affidavits are not filed within time, which ultimately lead to a situation where the Courts are driven to believe the ex parte version of the applicant and pass the order on the basis of the said ex parte statement. The Officers wake up only, when contempt notices are issued by the Court to show cause as to why they should not be punished for disobeying the order of the Court. The facts of the present case are revealing in itself. ( 12 ) FIRST of all when the petitioner/applicant came to file the writ petition in this Court in 1992 and the petition was disposed of by the order of this Court directing the respondents to consider the petitioners representation, the respondents did not care to pass a reasoned order, instead passed a cursory summary one line bald order that the application for regularisation has been rejected. Had the respondents cared to pass a reasoned order disclosing all the facts which the opposite parties have disclosed in the counter affidavit filed to the contempt application, either the Court would not have entertained the second petition or would have passed some other order. However, due to passing of arbitrary bald order, the Court had to issue notice and express its concern over the manner in which the order was passed. However, due to passing of arbitrary bald order, the Court had to issue notice and express its concern over the manner in which the order was passed. Despite notice and time having been given, the opposite parties never cared to file a counter affidavit within the time allowed. However, when the applicant sent the judgment of this Court to the opposite parties, they rejected the applicants application for joining again by a contemptuous order defying the Courts direction to pass a reasoned order for terminating the applicants services instead insisted on the same bald order to be a reasoned order. The order clearly shows the attitude of defiance by the opposite parties. ( 13 ) IT may also be stated that instead of filing a review application, a restoration application was filed again justifying the order on merits. However, the said restoration application was rejected by my order passed on 19-7-1993. Two courses were open to the opposite parties either to have filed an appeal against the said order or to have complied with the said order, after dismissal of the restoration application on 19-7-1993. However, despite the dismissal of the application, the opposite parties neither cared to comply with the order nor filed an appeal against the said order rejecting their application for recall of my order, dated 18-2-1993. The contempt matter came up before me after a lapse of 11/2 years. Even on that date, the counsel for the opposite parties did not express any regret for non-compliance of the Courts order nor any supplementary affidavit was filed explaining as to why the order was not complied with despite the recall application having been rejected as far back as on 19-7-1993. ( 14 ) THE issue before me is not as to whether the applicants writ petition should have been allowed had the correct facts been brought to the notice of the Court but the issue in the present contempt petitionis as to attitude of the opposite parties towards the High Courts orders. The attitude of contempt of the opposite parties is writ large on the face of the record. The attitude of contempt of the opposite parties is writ large on the face of the record. The opposite parties hardly cared either to comply with the order despite having known that the recall application has been rejected and despite the fact that there was sufficient time thereafter for the opposite parties to have complied with the order or would have got the order stayed by filing an appeal. They, however, chose to continue to disobey the order. ( 15 ) IT is settled proposition of law that the Contempt Court is not supposed to examine the merits of the order. The Contempt Court cannot go behind the order. The opposite parties cannot be permitted to judge the merits themselves of an order quashed by the High Court or they cannot be permitted to defy the Courts order on the ground that the order is not correct. If this is to be permitted, the entire judicial structure will fall down and every person will defy the orders on the ground that the order is not correct. I am also of the view that merely by filing an appeal or merely by filing an application for recall, a person cannot be permitted to wait till the appeal is decided or the order is recalled. It is the bounden duty of the opposite parties in such cases to ensure that either get operation of the order, of which compliance is required, by appellate court or in case they fail to do it they must obey the order. This attitude is through out lacking in the present case. I am clearly of the view that both the opposite parties have intentionally violated the order of this Court with contempt. ( 16 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances of the case, I hold that the opposite parties are guilty of committing contempt of this Court by disobeying the order passed by this Court on 18-2-1993 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14898 of 1992, Anil Sharma v. Joint Director (Training/apprenticeship) Meerut. However, taking a lenient view of the matter, instead of passing a sentence of imprisonment, I impose a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 on each of the opposite parties. In default, the opposite parties will have to undergo a simple imprisonment of 15 days each. Writ Petition No. 14898 of 1992, Anil Sharma v. Joint Director (Training/apprenticeship) Meerut. However, taking a lenient view of the matter, instead of passing a sentence of imprisonment, I impose a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 on each of the opposite parties. In default, the opposite parties will have to undergo a simple imprisonment of 15 days each. ( 17 ) A certified copy of this order may be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut by speed post within a week from today, who should ensure the compliance of the order after a month from today. ( 18 ) THE copy of the judgment, be forwarded to Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh for information. Order accordingly. .