SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J. ( 1 ) WITH utmost caution and restraint at our command and following the principle that under gravest provocation one should be cool and composed, we heard the matter very patiently and considered very diligently, and yet we cannot persuade ourselves. Whenever a situation warrants, the Court will have to rise on the occasion. ( 2 ) THIS case is glaring example where a responsible Government official with all condition and awarness is determined to challenge the majesty of this Court. With repeated caution he does not take a lesson and wants to measure his sword with the patience and wisdom of the Court. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, a comprehensive writ application numbered as OJC 6307 of 1991 was filed by petitioner Rabinarayan Jena praying inter alia :". . . . . . that the Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the opposite parties to treat the period from 1-3-81 to 31-8-85 as the period the petitioner was on medical leave and to treat the petitioner to have been appointed in the post of Peon with effect from 1-1-79 with all consequential benefit such as seniority, approval, release of salary as per grant-in-aid principle;further the Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the order passed by the opposite party No. 2 vide Annexure-3 treating the date of joining of the petitioner in the college as 1-9-85 instead of 1-1-79. And further the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the opposite parties to approve the appointment of the petitioner as a Peon of the institution treating the date of appointment as 1-1-79 and to release the salary of the petitioner from out of the grant-in-aid of the State Government in pursuance of R. 9 of the Recruitment Rules, 1974 regularly without any further delay. " ( 4 ) THE writ application came up for final disposal on 4-1-93 before the Division Bench constituted by Hon'ble G. B. Patnaik and Hon'ble B. N. Dash, JJ. as His Lordships then were. " ( 4 ) THE writ application came up for final disposal on 4-1-93 before the Division Bench constituted by Hon'ble G. B. Patnaik and Hon'ble B. N. Dash, JJ. as His Lordships then were. By a comprehensive judgement and giving unequivocal direction, the writ petition was disposed of that very day holding, inter alia, that Annexure-5 to the writ application clearly indicated that a fresh appointment had been given to the petitioner on 1-9-85 and it was that appointment which appeared to have been accepted by the Deputy Director in Annexure-7 and in that view of the matter, appropriate steps ought to be taken by the Governing Body as well as the educational authorities to approve the petitioner's appointment with effect from 1-9-85 and disburse the consequential grant-in-aid. Direction was given to do so within three months of receipt of the Court's order. ( 5 ) ANNEXURE-7 to the writ application was a communication made by the Deputy Director, NCC-II of the Directorate of Higher Education, Orissa to the Principal-cum-Secretary of Governing Body of Swarnachud College, Mitrapur on the subject of approval of appointment of the petitioner with effect from 1-9-85. ( 6 ) THE present contempt petition was presented on 11-11-93. Notice was issued and the matter came up for orders on 9-4-96. The Division Bench considered the materials on record and observed, inter alia, that having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the contemner, the Court was shocked to find that the judgement dated 4-1-93 had not been implemented. Instead, the tenor of the affidavit showed that there was attempt for wilful and deliberate violation of the direction of the Court. In particular, the Court found from the letter dated 1-10-93 issued by one D. Satpathy that he was trying to circumvent the judgement in a manner which prima facie appeared to be reprehensible. Considering all these aspects, the Court directed Sri Gorachand Patnaik, the present Director of Higher Education, Orissa as well as Shri D. Satpathy, Deputy Secretary to Government of Orissa in the Department of Higher Education as on 1-10-93 to remain personally present in Court on 30-4-96 and file affidavit as to why they would not be properly punished for wilful and deliberate violation of the Court's order. Needless to observe, the letter dated 1-10-93 issued by Shri D. Satpathy, Liaison Officer-cum-Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education addressed to the Director of Higher Education, annexed to the show cause filed in the contempt proceeding, indicates that the Governing Body of the Swarnachud College was to be held responsible to pay the dues of the petitioner. It was also made clear that Government was not liable to pay grant-in-aid for any post beyond the prescribed yardstick and if the Governing Body had appointed any person in excess of the yardstick, they may bear the expenses connected with the claim of the petitioner arising out of the orders of this Court in the aforesaid writ application. Such stand was not appreciated by the Court and further liberty was granted to the cotemner to file a proper affidavit. ( 7 ) PURSUANT to our order dated 9-4-96 the contemner appeared before the Court on 30-4-96. An affidavit has since been filed by said Digambar Satpathy that day which is supported and placed before us by Shri S. P. Misra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the contemner. It appears that the self-same stand taken in the aforesaid letter dated 1-10-93 issued by the contemner has been more emphasised and in para 12 of the affidavit it is placed on record that since all the posts of Class IV employees admissible for the college in question had already been filled up by that time except the post of a lady attendant and no new post was admissible on the basis of workload and yardstick, there was no scope for approval of the petitioner's service against any post of peon in the college but with bona fide intention of implementing the order of the Court the concerned file was moved and referred to the Finance Department in accordance with the normal procedure for creation of a supernumerary post as per the suggestion given by the Director of Higher Education. It is stated that there is no chance in future to absorb the petitioner in a class IV post nor there is any scope for creation of a supernumerary post and taking all those facts and circumstances into consideration the Finance Department vide its endorsement dated 21-9-93 clarified that Government was not liable to pay any grant-in-aid for a post which is not admissible and is beyond the prescribed yardstick and suggested that if the Governing Body had appointed a person in excess of the yardstick, they might bear the expenses connected with the claim of the petitioner arising out of the Court's order. ( 8 ) IN para 13 of the said affidavit it is placed on record that the deponent after receipt of the decision of the Finance Department dated 21-9-93 communicated to the Director of Higher Education as per the letter dated 1-10-93. It was stated therein that the Governing Body of the college was to be held responsible to pay the dues of the petitioner as per order of the Court as long as the petitioner is not absorbed against a grant-in-aid post within the yardstick. It was further stated that Government would not be liable to pay any grant-in-aid for a post created beyond the yardstick and since Governing Body had appointed the petitioner they were to bear the expenses. ( 9 ) IN para 14 of the affidavit it is asserted that the deponent being the officer-in-charge of the branch had only communicated the decision to the Director of Higher Education and he has stated that Government is not in a position to create a supernumerary post for the petitioner with effect from 1-9-85 to adjust the petitioner who had been appointed by the Governing Body in violation of the prescribed yardstick as the same would create a bad precedent resulting in heavy financial burden to the State and other similarly placed persons who might have been appointed beyond the yardstick by the governing bodies of different colleges would also come forward with similar claim and Government would not be in a position to disallow their claims because of the fact that once similar benefits have been extended in respect of a particular person. ( 10 ) AFTER going through the affidavit we find as if the contemner is sitting in appeal over the judgement dated 4-1-93 of the Division Bench of this Court. ( 10 ) AFTER going through the affidavit we find as if the contemner is sitting in appeal over the judgement dated 4-1-93 of the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench while disposing of the writ application heard the submissions on behalf of petitioner, on behalf of the governing body, the State as well as the appropriate educational authorities. On appreciation of the materials on record it was found that the governing body had duly appointed the petitioner within the proper yardstick and after complying with the proper norms. Such appointment made by the Governing Body had been accepted by Government without raising any voice whatsoever that the same was illegal or irregular, or that Government had no liability to make any payment in respect of the said post. After Government and the Governing Body suffered the judgement the only course open to them was either to ask for review of the judgement or to go higher up against the same. They are certainly not permitted to sit tight over the judgement and re-write the same observing that Government is unable to implement the judgement of the Court for any reason whatsoever. This Court is not concerned with the bar or impediment pointed out by the Finance Department. When the State Government was a party to the writ application which was heared on merit, it is no longer open to the Deputy Secretary or any other official of the State Government to put a clog or raise any voice to circumvent the judgement of the Court without taking effective steps to implement the same or set aside the same by the apex Court, or otherwise. Once the judgement of the Court reached the stage of finality it cannot be said that for implementing the same creation of a supernumerary post would be a bad precedent. There are hundred instances where such supernumerary posts were created to implement the judgement as the situation warranted. Unfortunately the contemner Digambar Satpathy who is the Deputy Secretary did not learn lesson after the order dated 9-4-96 was passed. There are hundred instances where such supernumerary posts were created to implement the judgement as the situation warranted. Unfortunately the contemner Digambar Satpathy who is the Deputy Secretary did not learn lesson after the order dated 9-4-96 was passed. He sticks to his own mind and thinks that his guns are very powerful and if he sticks to his own views the order of the Court would become a fine rhetoric, empty of all meaning or worth, we observe further that the Governing Body of the college has brought to our notice that in fact there is a vacant post. The Governing Body had not made the appointment beyond the rules nor was it made beyond the yardstick. Though this point is no longer open to the contemner, yet it was considered by the Court and found that the contemner is taking a stand which is not only contrary to the spirit of the judgement dated 4-1-93 but even against the spirit of the materials on record. It is amply clear that the contemner Digambar Satpathy has least regard or respect for the order of the Court and attempts to circumvent the same. He has repeatedly asserted that the judgement of the Court cannot be implemented lest Government would have to face other similar cases unnecessarily. This attitude of the contemner is not only apparent, but it is also conclusively found to be deliberate, wilful and purposeful violation of the order of the Court. ( 11 ) WE have repeatedly observed that the Court has no sadistic pleasure to punish a litigant. There should be adjudication with knowledge of law and spirit of compassion. Human feeling should not be lost sight of at any moment. But this Court will be failing in its duty if the majesty of the Court, and in particular the faith and trust of the litigants at large on this institution is shakened and those type of contemners go scot free. This Court has also repeatedly observed that on such occasion the Bench and the Bar should be united. The Bench always appreciates the Bar and the Bar should be proud of the Bench if they jointly work when there is a threat to the institution and/or any step is taken to erode the faith and trust on the institution. This Court has also repeatedly observed that on such occasion the Bench and the Bar should be united. The Bench always appreciates the Bar and the Bar should be proud of the Bench if they jointly work when there is a threat to the institution and/or any step is taken to erode the faith and trust on the institution. We observe that the contemner Digambar Satpathy does not deserve any sympathy nor we feel any necessity to grant him further opportunity to file a fresh affidavit as the situation cannot improve and the letter dated 1-10-93 as also the affidavit dated 29-4-96 if read together will convince hesitation that he is guilty of contempt of this Court. Regard being had to the materials on record and considering the gravity of the situation we have no other alternative but to punish him. We sentence the contemner Digambar Satpathy, the Liaison Officer-cum-Deputy Secretary to Government of Orissa, Department of Higher Education to imprisonment for four weeks and direct him to surrender within ten days from today. ( 12 ) SO far as the Director is concerned, we direct him to take immediate steps to approach the Government and see that necessary order is made for implementation of the judgement of the Court dated 4-1-93. ( 13 ) WE make it clear that as we have granted ten days' time to surrender, the contemner may implement the judgement unhesitatingly and may thereafter ask for such leave of the Court as he may be advised. ( 14 ) WE direct all the concerned officials of the State Government to cooperate in the matter of implementation of the direction of the Court. This cooperation by the Government officials should be made notwithstanding any objection raised by the Finance Department in any manner whatsoever. ( 15 ) DIPAK MISHRA, J. , I agree. Order accordingly.