V. P. MOHAN KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS herein are the legal representatives of one deceased Syed Hayath Peer alias Pyaru. He died in an accident. They filed a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation act, 1923, seeking compensation. After contest a sum of rs. 71,396/- was awarded along with interest, by its award dated 30-1-1992. The employer was the 3rd respondent herein. A certificate was issued apparently under Section 31 of the workmen's Compensation Act on 12-11-1992 to recover the amount. The 2nd respondent received the same on 13-11-1992. The petitioner then approached the 2nd respondent to take steps to recover the amount due under the award. It is seen from the records that on 23-3-1993, a seizure notice was issued by the 2nd respondent to recover the amount due from the 3rd respondent. Nothing seems to have been done thereafter. It was followed by another seizure notice dated 6-5-1993. The same also was not enforced. It is stated that the 3rd respondent then wrote a letter to the Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent, on 15-5-1993 that they are awaiting sanction from the Government, for disbursement of the amount due and as they have not received the sanction, the amount cannot be disbursed. The 1st respondent again wrote a letter to the 2nd respondent regarding the recovery of the amount due to the petitioners. Ultimately on 24-1-1996, the government passed an order permitting the 3rd respondent to disburse the amount due. The 3rd respondent thereafter disbursed the following amounts on the following dates: 30-4-1996 Rs. 40,000/- 18-6-1996 Rs. 40,000/- 04-9-1996 Rs. 22,000/- the petitioners filed this writ petition on 18-3-1996, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to take steps to recover the amount awarded as per the award passed by the 1st respondent. ( 2 ) WHEN the matter came up for hearing on several occasions, there was no response from the respondents more particularly, the 2nd and 3rd respondents in spite of the Government advocate communicating that they have to give proper instructions. Ultimately this Court on 8-8-1996, called upon the 2nd respondent to appear before this Court. It appears that there was some misunderstanding on the part of the government Advocate and the communication did not reach the 2nd respondent as intended. Subsequently, on 11-9-1996 this court directed the 2nd respondent to appear before the Court on 19-9-1996. Ultimately this Court on 8-8-1996, called upon the 2nd respondent to appear before this Court. It appears that there was some misunderstanding on the part of the government Advocate and the communication did not reach the 2nd respondent as intended. Subsequently, on 11-9-1996 this court directed the 2nd respondent to appear before the Court on 19-9-1996. The 2nd respondent has appeared before the Court. The Officer who appeared submitted that he is Incumbent officer who took charge on 27-10-1995 and he is not in any way responsible for the delay that took place between 12-11-1992 from the date on which the certificate was issued by the 1st respondent to recover the amount till that date. ( 3 ) IT is seen that there has been gross dereliction of duty by the 2nd respondent as also by the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent has failed to take steps to recover the amount covered by the award. A certificate had been issued to the tahsildar as early as on 12-11-1992 from the office of the 1st respondent. There is no reason why steps had not been taken for recovery of the amount awarded. Mere issuance of seizure notice will riot satisfy the requirement of law. A mere seizure notice is no substitute for money. Further, the petitioners have now received money not due to any of the efforts made by the 2nd respondent. The conduct of the 3rd respondent displays sheer indifference. It is seen that the 3rd respondent was served notice of the writ petition on 25-6-1996 but remained absent. Rule was issued on 11-7-1996. Subsequent orders of this Court dated 8-8-1996 and 11-9-1996 were all made after the service of notice to the 3rd respondent. ( 4 ) THE 3rd respondent is also guilty of negligence. A judgment-debtor cannot dictate to the decree-holder that as and when he comes by the means he will discharge the decree debt. The 3rd respondent could have satisfied the decree debt and sought for subsequent ratification. After all, by discharging the debt due under the award, it cannot be said that the 3rd respondent is utilising the money for any unauthorised purposes. The petitioners are not to wait at the door steps of the 3rd respondent as if waiting to receive charity. The petitioners are claiming their right acquired by them under an award passed under a statute. The petitioners are not to wait at the door steps of the 3rd respondent as if waiting to receive charity. The petitioners are claiming their right acquired by them under an award passed under a statute. It is very strange that no steps were taken by the 3rd respondent to expedite the payment. The payment due under the award is not a bounty being endowed upon the legal heirs by the 3rd respondent. The compensation is being paid to the legal representatives on the death of their bread winner. He died on 30-9-1990 and after a contest the award was made on 30-1-1992. It is said by the Privy Council that the agony of the decree-holder commences after he secures a decree. This is what is clearly demonstrated in this case. There is a serious lapse on the part of the Incumbent Officer of the 2nd respondent who was in office on 25-3-1993 and 6-5-1993 in taking steps to safeguard the interest of the citizens. When the statute orders the recovery of any amount as if it is arrears of land revenue, the State expects the subordinate officials would recover the same post-haste. The certificates are not issued merely for the sake of formality. The 2nd respondent is expected to act in all seriousness and enforce the certificate. Mere issuance of formal seizure notice is not the acquittal of his duties as a public servant. As a public servant, important duties and responsibilities vests in him and the citizens look upon htm to guard their rights. It is a serious matter if a public servant starts abetting the defiance and flouting of valid and binding orders passed by the competent authorities. What the 2nd respondent has done in this case is to encourage the 3rd respondent to defy the award made by the Workmen's compensation Commissioner. There can be no defence or justification for the indifference displayed by the 2nd respondent. Appropriate action should be taken against the concerned Officer who was in office at the relevant time for the dereliction of duty cast on htm brought about by the non-enforcement of the certificate issued under the Workmen's compensation Act. ( 5 ) AS stated earlier, a certificate has been issued by the 1st respondent to recover the amount from the 3rd respondent as early on 12-11-1992. ( 5 ) AS stated earlier, a certificate has been issued by the 1st respondent to recover the amount from the 3rd respondent as early on 12-11-1992. Such certificates are being issued not merely for the sake of issuing certificates or for issuing seizure notices and making mock attempts by the 2nd respondent to recover the amount. Further follow up action should have been taken by the 2nd respondent in all earnestness. He should be alive to the fact that a family consisting of minor children are looking forward for the money being realised for their existence. A public servant cannot turn a Nelsons eye to the needs of the society whom he is enjoined to serve. He is essentially the servant of the public, duty bound to serve the public. These posts are not mere ornamental appendages intended to provide employment to various persons. There is no reason why the 2nd respondent stopped with issuing notices dated 25-3-1993 and 6-5-1993 and allowed himself to be cajoled by the reply of the 3rd respondent. The delay has helped the 3rd respondent to enjoy a stay not granted by any judicial forum. By inaction virtually the 2nd respondent has stayed the recovery. That means the 2nd respondent has wielded an extra-judicial appellate power on the basis of a letter allegedly sent on 15-5-1993 by the 3rd respondent to defer steps. It is rather most unsatisfactory way of discharging his power when called upon to execute the award passed by the 1st respondent. Such overt inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent amounts to misuse of the power vested in him. If an authority bound to exercise power, misuses the same or abuses the same, this Court should step in, to set right the conduct of the authority and direct it to act according to law. It is the bounden duty cast on this Court. If this Court also fails and do not react to such a conduct, it will be degenerating itself to the status of an accomplice. In this case as a matter of fact, instead of assuaging the injury sustained by the petitioners, the incumbent of the office of the 2nd respondent for the period from 23-3-1993 has aggravated it by driving them to another round of litigation. In this case as a matter of fact, instead of assuaging the injury sustained by the petitioners, the incumbent of the office of the 2nd respondent for the period from 23-3-1993 has aggravated it by driving them to another round of litigation. The least that this Court can do, in an attempt to redress the hurt inflicted on the petitioners is to award cost to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners will be entitled to the cost of the present proceedings. The 2nd respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- by way of cost to the petitioners. Likewise the 3rd respondent has also adopted a nonchalant attitude. Instead of expediting the payment, even after receipt of the Government sanction, it has adopted an indifferent attitude. Hence, the 3rd respondent is also liable to pay the cost to the petitioners for not having taken any steps for paying the amount awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner within a reasonable time. The quantum of cost is fixed at Rs. 2,500/ -. 6, In view of the circumstances that the amount awarded by the 1st respondent has now been discharged, no further orders are called for in this writ petition. After the cost is paid by the 2nd respondent to the petitioners as indicated above, the same may be recovered personally from the Officer who was working as tahsildar, Chitradurga during the period from 12-11-1992 to 15-5-1993. The writ petition is disposed off as above. A copy of this order be furnished to the Government for taking necessary action. --- *** --- .