Judgment Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner is a widow of one Balmukund Sinha, who was an Executive Engineer working in the Road Construction Department of the Stale Government. He died on 29-4-98 while in service. The petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 9237/98 (Smt. Chintamani Sinha V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.) inter alia praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the authority to pay her the arrear of salary of her husband and retrial benefits on account of services rendered by her late husband. 2. The writ application came up for consideration before this Court on 5-1 -1999. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner had filed representation for the reliefs claimed in the writ application, this Court disposed of the writ application with the following directions: I, accordingly, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No. 1, the Commissioner and Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, to decide the pending representation of the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order on him. The claim of the petitioner for arrear of salary will also be considered within the same period. The amount found due to the petitioner will be paid to her within one month from the date of disposal of her representation with statutory interest. 3. Complaining non-compliance of this order the petitioner has filed this application, impleading Commissioner and Secretary, Road Construction Department, besides other persons for initiating proceeding for contempt against the opposite party and for their punishment. When the application was posted for consideration on 16-7-2001, this Court observed as follows: From the earlier order of this Court dated 15-1-99 (Annexure 1) it is clear that the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order within three months. Since the petitioner has not been allowed all her claims, it will be deemed that some part of her claim has been rejected by the department or the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the department but without passing any speaking order till date. Such a situation is unfortunate and This grave omission on the part of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary must be rectified at the earliest. Such a situation is unfortunate and This grave omission on the part of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary must be rectified at the earliest. In such circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation with regard to her grievance as standing on date and thereafter the Commis-sioner-cum-Secretary must pass a reasoned order giving reasons if any part of her claim is not allowed so that the spirit of the order dated 15-1-99 should be complied with. For this purpose the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation within one week from today. The present Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Road Construction Department will thereafter go through the grievance of the petitioner carefully and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of the representation. (Underlining mine) 4. Again the contempt application was taken up by this Court on 3-9-2001 and after taking note of the fact that the representation as directed by order dated 6-7-2001 has been filed by the petitioner but the same has not been disposed of, this Court observed as follows: As noticed in order dated 16-7-2001 the Commissioner had failed to pass a speaking order as required by order of this Court dated 15-1-1999 (Annexure 1). Such repeated disregard of this Courts order leaves no option for this Court but to direct for personal appearance of respondent No. 7 on the next date. However, such personal appearance will stand waived if the order of this Court is complied in letter and spirit by the next date. Let this matter be listed under the same heading among first ten cases on 10th September, 2001. On that date either a show-cause should be filed showing compliance with the order of this Court or respondent No. 7 must be personally present in Court. (Underlining mine) 5. When the matter came up for consideration on 10-9-2001 it was found that not only the order dated 15-1-99 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9237 of 1998 has not been complied with but the orders dated 16-7-2001 and 3-9-2001 passed in the contempt application did not had desired effect and the representation remained pending. Not only this the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, hereinafter referred to as the contemner, as directed, did not appear personally before this Court. Not only this the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, hereinafter referred to as the contemner, as directed, did not appear personally before this Court. Hence this Court was constrained to pass the following orders: Let Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna cause the production of opposite party No. 7, i.e. the Secretary Road Construction Department, Patna before this Court on the aforesaid date. 6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the contemner appeared before this Court in person on 14-9-2001, Show-cause and supplementary show-cause have been filed on his behalf. In the show-cause it has been stated that the representation filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by order dated 7-9-2001 (Annexure E), In the supplementary show-cause the Commissioner has also placed on record the communication dated 11 -9-2001 whereby it has requested the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna to issue authority slip. Besides the aforesaid he has tendered unqualified apology and stated that he has highest regard for the orders passed by this Court. 7. I have heard Sri Manmohan for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Bihari Sinha, Standing Counsel for the contemner. 8. As stated earlier by order dated 15-1 -99 the representation of the petitioner was directed to be disposed of within three months but it was not done and the contempt application was filed on 29-7-1999. Generally speaking women in this country invite respect and widows evoke sympathy but contemner seems to be person, who has no concern for the suffering of the others. Instead of behaving like servant of the public and attempting to remedy the plight of the widow suo motu he had not chosen even to carry out the direction of this Court with promptness. Not only this the direction, caution and anguish expressed by this Court on 16-7-2001 i.e. "such a situation is unfortunate and this grave omission on the part of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary must be rectified at the earliest" did not had the desired result and the representation was not disposed of within three weeks from the date of the order. 9. Neither in the show-cause nor in the supplementary show-cause contemner has placed on record any reasons as to why the order passed by this Court was not complied with within the time stipulated. In case the contemner had any difficulty in passing the order nothing prevented him from praying before this Court for extension of time. 9. Neither in the show-cause nor in the supplementary show-cause contemner has placed on record any reasons as to why the order passed by this Court was not complied with within the time stipulated. In case the contemner had any difficulty in passing the order nothing prevented him from praying before this Court for extension of time. Needless to state that the State Government has battery of law officer and in case the contemner had any difficulty in complying with the order of this Court within the time stipulated, he would well have been advised to file application for extension of time. This he has not done. 10. It has been pointed out by the contemner that he jointed as Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department in November, 2000 and therefore, he cannot be held responsible for the delay in disposal of the representation, prior to his joining. this Court by order dated 15-1-1999 directed for disposal of the representation and even if the contemner had joined as Commissioner-cum-Secretary in November, 2000 he had sufficient time for disposal of the representation. Not only that on 16-7-2001 after his joining this Court directed him to dispose of the representation within the period of three weeks. He has not chosen to do the same. As pointed out earlier nothing has been placed on record, which would in any way explain the delay in disposal of the representation. Notwithstanding the plea of the contemner that he has highest regard for the orders passed by this Court, I am of the opinion that he has taken the order of this Court very casually. Accordingly, I hold that the contemner wilfully did not comply the order dated 15-1-1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9237 of 1998 and the order dated 16-7-2001 passed in the present contempt application within the time stipulated. 11. Having held the contemner guilty of contempt; next question which arises for consideration is as to whether unqualified apology tendered by him is fit to be accepted. I am conscious of the fact that the contempt power should be kept sheathed and sword should be drawn sparingly and moderation in exercise of this power lends dignity but the fact of the present case compels me to use this power. As stated earlier in the show-cause as also in the supplementary show-cause the contemner has tendered unqualified apology. I am conscious of the fact that the contempt power should be kept sheathed and sword should be drawn sparingly and moderation in exercise of this power lends dignity but the fact of the present case compels me to use this power. As stated earlier in the show-cause as also in the supplementary show-cause the contemner has tendered unqualified apology. For the reason hereinafter stated I am not inclined to accept the unqualified apology. A tendency has grown amongst the senior officers of the State, not to take the orders passed by this Court seriously and pendency of a large number of contempt applications clearly reflects the same. A situation has come when the litigants have to resort to contempt proceeding for execution of the order passed by this Court and virtually contempt applications have become an execution proceeding. Magnanmity shown by the Court has not been taken in right perspective. Cynics have started saying that the day is not far off, when the number of writ applications allowed and number of contempt applications would be the same, as for execution of every order passed by this Court, contempt action has to resorted to. There may be exaggeration in this statement but the manner in which this Court had to chase the contemner for compliance of the order, depicts a very sad state of affairs and failure to curb this attitude, may in future lead to a situation which the cynics have started projecting today. This tendency has to be curbed at > any cost and this situation cannot be countenanced; all concerned have to be told loudly and clearly that the order passed by this Court are meant to be obeyed; and obeyed within the time stipulated by this Court. 12. I wonder when the order of this Court can be implemented after the contempt application is filed. Why it cannot be without that. In this context the editorial of India Today dated 10th July, 2000 comes in my mind: The bureaucracy-self perpetuating Hobbesian leviathan is not just the symptom of the Indias ills; it is the disease. Its very structure, sabotages innovations, condones lassitude and encourages the attitude that a Government job is a sinecure from the day you get it. 13. In this context the editorial of India Today dated 10th July, 2000 comes in my mind: The bureaucracy-self perpetuating Hobbesian leviathan is not just the symptom of the Indias ills; it is the disease. Its very structure, sabotages innovations, condones lassitude and encourages the attitude that a Government job is a sinecure from the day you get it. 13. I am of the opinion that the contemner has tendered apolcgy not on account of any remorse but to avoid punishment and accordingly, I am not inclined to accept his apoplogy. I am of the opinion that the ends of justice demand that he be awarded substantive sentence. 14. Accordingly, I make the rule absolute against A.K. Upadhyay, Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar and sentence him to imprisonment for seven days. Rule issued against other persons stands discharged. Later on: 15. After I pronounced the order holding the contemner guilty and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days, learned Counsel for the contemner submits that he intends filing an appeal against the order and as such the execution of the punishment be suspended. 16. Let the execution of the sentence be suspended for a period of two weeks.