Judgment 1. This M.J.C. application has been filed complaining deliberate and wilful violation of the direction of this Court dated 14.12.1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 564 of 1998 contained in Annexure-1 with a prayer to hold the Contemnor-Opposite parties guilty for contempt and thereby suitably punish them for non compliance of the said direction of this Court. 2. The facts giving rise to this contempt application are that the petitioner, who claims to be the adopted son of late Birat Gope, who died as Class IV employee in the Bihar State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board on 6.3.1987, was appointed on compassionate ground as Class IV employee (unskilled khalasi) in the Board vide letter dated 1.2.1992 and he accordingly joined the service on 7.2.1992. Before that the Board granted a sum of Rs. 500/- to perform the funeral and ritual work of late Birat Gope and also released post death retirement benefit, such as, gratuity amount, leave encashment, G.P.F amount, Group Savings Scheme amount and other relevant payments of late Birat Gope in favour of the petitioner being adopted son. All of a sudden the Superintending Engineer of the Board at Gaya called for an explanation from him for not submitting the required certificate as per provision of Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and, ultimately his service was terminated under the orders of the Joint Secretary of the Board against which he filed representation and produced the relevant documents before the concerned authority which was also rejected on 25.9.1997. Thereafter he filed the aforementioned writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 564 of 1998 before this Court assailing the validity of the order of his termination, which after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Board was disposed of vide order dated 14.12.1998 (Annexure-1), violation of which has been complained. 3. The claim for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of adoptive father Birat Gope, who was in the employment of the Board, was rejected on the ground that he was not validly adopted son. 3. The claim for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of adoptive father Birat Gope, who was in the employment of the Board, was rejected on the ground that he was not validly adopted son. Learned counsel then appearing for the petitioner after realising that he will have to seek declaration with respect to the above in Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, where the petitioner will have ample opportunity of leading oral as well as documentary evidence, sought for disposal of the writ application with a direction that after such a declaration, the petitioner may move the Board for appointment on compassionate ground along with a copy of the judgment of the Civil Court. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the Board and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court found that the prayer on behalf of the petitioner was quite reasonable and justified and under such circumstances disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the petitioner may approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration that he was validly adopted son of late Birat Gope and in case of his success he shall move the authority in the Board along with a copy of the judgment, thereafter the Board shall consider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground afresh in the light of the judgment of the Civil Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 48 of 1999 seeking a declaration that he is validly adopted son of late Birat Gope in the Court of Ist Subordinate Judge, Gaya, who on detailed consideration of evidence led before him gave its judgment on 31.1.2000, in which the Court held that the petitioner is validly adopted son of late Birat Gope and accordingly, decreed the suit on contest. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, contained in Annexure-1, the petitioner moved the authority, namely, Chairman and the Secretary of the Board on 4.5.2000 for cancelling his termination order and reinstatement in service in continuation of his appointment letter dated 1.2.1992 and also to provide the consequential benefit of the same vide Annexure-3. On 26th May, 2000 the Joint Secretary of the Board vide its letter, contained in Annexure-4, required the petitioner to furnish the certified copy of the plaint and written statement filed in the suit in connection with the examination of his matter. On 26th May, 2000 the Joint Secretary of the Board vide its letter, contained in Annexure-4, required the petitioner to furnish the certified copy of the plaint and written statement filed in the suit in connection with the examination of his matter. However, the petitioner after receipt of Annexure-4 filed the present M.J.C. application on 26.6.2000 alleging deliberate and wilful violation of the direction of this Court to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground afresh in the light of the judgment of the Civil Court. 4. Earlier a show cause was filed on behalf of the Board (Opposite party no.1) to which a copy of the communication on the basis of the decision of the Central Compassionate Appointment Committee, hereinafter referred to as the Committee, rejecting the claim of the petitioner was annexed as Annexure-B. One of the reasons rejecting the claim by the Committee was that the suit for declaration itself was time barred under Section 58 of the Limitation Act. When this Court took serious objection to the manner in which the claim of the petitioner has been dealt with by the Committee, Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Board on 18.4.2002 admitted that the decision of the Committee was not in the light of the direction of this Court and also that there was no decision taken by the Board. The Court after noticing the fact that this Court vide Annexure-1 had directed the Board to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground afresh in the light of the judgment of the Civil Court prima facie, found that the case for initiation of contempt has been made out against the members of the Board including the Chairman and, accordingly, vide order dated 18.4.2002 permitted to add them as party and issued notice to them for their personal appearance and filing show cause. A supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf of the Board and separate show cause have been filed on behalf of the Chairman and some of its members (newly added Opposite party nos. 7 and 9 to 12.) 5. In the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of the Board (Opposite party no. A supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf of the Board and separate show cause have been filed on behalf of the Chairman and some of its members (newly added Opposite party nos. 7 and 9 to 12.) 5. In the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of the Board (Opposite party no. 1), the resolution of the Board considering the claim for appointment of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure-E. In the separate show cause filed on behalf of the Chairman and its members common plea has been taken that the matter relating to compassionate appointment of Class III and IV Post is never brought before the Board, and that the order of this Court was brought to their notice only when an agenda note was circulated for being placed and considered in the Boards meeting scheduled to be held on 3rd May, 2002. In the show cause filed on behalf of the Part-time Member, namely, Sri Mukesh Nandan " Prasad, Finance Secretary of the Government of Bihar, it is stated that he being a part-time member is only aware of such matters which are placed before the Board, and, thus, according to him, there was no wilful intention on his part to flout or disrespect the order of this Court. The Chairman in his show cause has also pleaded that he joined the Board on 22.10.2001 when the order of this Court had been already complied under the decision taken by the Central Compassionate Appointment Committee with the approval of the then Chairman of the Board. He has further stated that he was only apprised of the order of this Court recently when this contempt petition was listed for the first time in the month of April, 2002 and thereafter he took decision that the matter should be immediately placed before the Board and the Board vide its resolution no. 7832 dated 3rd May, 2002 (Annexure-E to the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of the Board) considered the case of the petitioner. All of them have tendered unqualified apology. The Chairman and the members (newly added Opposite parties no. 7, 9, 11 & 12) personally appeared on 13.5.2002 and stated that they have acted bonafide under the legal advice and there has been no wilful intention on their part to flout or disrespect the order/direction of this Court. 6. All of them have tendered unqualified apology. The Chairman and the members (newly added Opposite parties no. 7, 9, 11 & 12) personally appeared on 13.5.2002 and stated that they have acted bonafide under the legal advice and there has been no wilful intention on their part to flout or disrespect the order/direction of this Court. 6. As was agreed the parties were heard in detail for final disposal of this contempt petition at this stage itself on 13.5.2002 and the order was reserved to be delivered on 20.5.2002. 7. In the resolution passed by the Board, contained in Annexure-E, the Board has raised various objections on merit with respect to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground including questioning the genuineness of his claim regarding adoption by Birat Gope and virtually reiterating the earlier decision of the Central Compassionate Appointment Committee. This Court fails to appreciate as to how it was open for the Board to question the correctness of the judgment/decree of the Civil Court, when on hearing the petitioner and the Board in the writ petition, this Court directed that in case of petitioners success he shall move the authority in the Board along with a copy of the judgment and thereafter the Board shall consider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground afresh in the light of the judgment of the Civil Court. According to Mr. Jha, since the Board was not party in the suit, the judgment of the Civil Court is not binding as it was not a judgment in rem. It is submitted that the Board was necessary party and as the decree obtained in absence of the Board, the authority have acted reasonably to test the correctness of the judgment and the decree of the Civil Court. In support of this, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Director of Technical Education & anr. V/s. K. Sita Devi, reported in 1991 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 387 and an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in the case of Om Prakash Prasad @ Om Prakash Singh V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 1115 of 2002 disposed of on 29.4.2002) [ 2002(2) PLJR 735 ]. I failed to appreciate as to how the said judgment/order is of any help to the authority of the Board. (C.W.J.C. No. 1115 of 2002 disposed of on 29.4.2002) [ 2002(2) PLJR 735 ]. I failed to appreciate as to how the said judgment/order is of any help to the authority of the Board. There cannot be any doubt to the proposition that where a person/authority is not made party in the suit and a decree is passed in their absence, it will not be binding on them and unless it is a judgment in rem it can only be treated as a piece of evidence. In the case before the Apex Court, suit was filed against the Board/University for alteration of date of birth in matriculation certificate and State was not made party, the Apex Court held, the decree against the Board/University which issued matriculation certificate not binding on the Government. It can only be treated as a piece of evidence. In the case before the learned Single Judge also the question was not similar to the present case, where this Court in the writ petition to which the Board was also a party and contested, gave aforementioned direction to consider the petitioners claim for appointment on compassionate ground afresh in the light of the judgment of the Civil Court. In the present case, the question is not as to whether the decree of the Civil Court will bind the Board when they were not party to it for which the aforementioned decisions relied upon by the learned counsel have relevance. The real issue is whether on the face of the order of this Court to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground afresh in the light of the judgment of the Civil Court, the Board had any option/authority not to have acted in the light of the judgment of the Civil Court. 8. Learned counsel for the Board also ventured to question the correctness of the decree of the Civil Court by referring to some documents to defend the action of the Board. I failed to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel. This Court gave aforementioned direction in the writ case only when the Board rejected the claim of the petitioner of his being adopted by the deceased employee of the Board as he had failed to submit the required certificate as per the provision of Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. I failed to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel. This Court gave aforementioned direction in the writ case only when the Board rejected the claim of the petitioner of his being adopted by the deceased employee of the Board as he had failed to submit the required certificate as per the provision of Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Thus, there was no direction given to the petitioner to implead the Board also party in the suit. While giving the said direction the Board never objected nor they preferred any appeal against the said order of this Court. 9. A Division Bench of this Court presided over by Reuben & Das, J.J. in the case of Sri Subodh Gopal Bose V/s. Daimia Jain & Co., Ltd. & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1951 Patna 266 held that the party against whom an order of injunction is made cannot disregard the order on the ground that its issuance in any particular. Right or wrong, the injunction order binds him, and he disregards it at his peril. 10. I am unable to appreciate that such submissions are made and pleas are taken to defend the contemnor only after M.J.C. application for initiating contempt is filed and even after notice the order is not complied by the Contemnor-Opposite parties. It is really surprising that even after the adjournment was granted on the prayer made on behalf of the Opposite parties to rectify the error, the Board passed the resolution (Annexure-E to the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of Opposite party no. 1) that the claim of the petitioner that he was adopted by late Birat Gope in the light of the Civil Court decree is not acceptable. A plea has also been taken that the deceased employee of the Board did not ever nominate this petitioner as his heir to receive the terminal benefit on his retirement or premature death, and that the affidavit filed before the Magistrate two days before his death cannot be accepted as a valid proof of the petitioners legal adoption as his son. It is not disputed that the Board granted a sum of Rs. It is not disputed that the Board granted a sum of Rs. 500/- to perform the furneral and ritual work of the deceased employee and also released post death retirement benefit, such as, gratuity amount, leave encashment, G.P.F. amount, Group Savings Scheme amount and other payments of the deceased employee in favour of the petitioner being adopted son. The Board has also taken a plea in its resolution (Annexure-E) that it had already withdrawn much earlier, vide its standing order dated 21.7.1993, its earlier policy of appointment of adopted son/daughter on compassionate grounds, which plea was not taken earlier in the writ petition. Moreover the Board was aware about a Bench decision of this Court in Kamal Ranjan V/s.The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1994(2) PLJR 536, in which it has been held that a Government circular by which adopted children of deceased Government employee were excluded from the scheme of compassionate appointments was contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Law, and, was, therefore, illegal and unsustainable and the learned Single Judge in the case of Om Prakash Prasad @ Om Prakash Singh V/s.The State of Bihar & ors (supra) in his order referred to above on that basis has also found that the Boards said Standing Order, prima facie, is bad which the Board in the resolution (Annexure-E) has referred, yet such ground has been taken to reject the claim of the petitioner despite specific direction of this Court to consider the petitioners claim for appointment on compassionate ground afresh in the light of the judgment of the Civil Court. 11. This Court expressed shock over the Contemnor-Opposite parties acting on such legal advice, as contended by them while personally appearing before this Court at the time of hearing of this contempt application on 13.5.2002. For getting such unfortunate legal advice from their legal advisor, the Contemnor-Opposite parties are to blame themselves and they cannot be allowed to take it as defence for not discharging their duty/responsibility in the matter of compliance of the Courts order. There was no question of acting on legal advice as nothing was left except to implement the order. For getting such unfortunate legal advice from their legal advisor, the Contemnor-Opposite parties are to blame themselves and they cannot be allowed to take it as defence for not discharging their duty/responsibility in the matter of compliance of the Courts order. There was no question of acting on legal advice as nothing was left except to implement the order. The Supreme Court in the case of J. Vasudevan V/s. T. R. Dhananjaya, reported in (1995)6 S.C.C. 249 had not accepted the prayer for remission of sentence on the statement that the Contemnor had acted on legal advice and also not considered relevant that the order had been implemented subsequently. If the order of this Court was erroneous in any particular, the proper procedure for the parties against whom it was made was to move for rectification of the error and the party against whom the order is made cannot disregard the order on the ground that it is erroneous in any particular. Right or wrong the order binds him and he disregards it at his peril. (See paragraph 5 - A.I.Ri 1951 Patna 266). 12. In the present case, admittedly the order was not complied and the Board took its resolution, contained in Annexure-E, only after the issuance of notice of contempt purporting to comply the order. In fact, such inaction has burdened this Court with filing of long list of M.J.C. application (contempt application), perhaps, because the authorities feel that the Court ultimately will exonerate them. This Court strongly deprecates the attitude of the authority for their inaction in the matter of strict compliance of the order/direction of this Court. 13. In fact, such inaction has burdened this Court with filing of long list of M.J.C. application (contempt application), perhaps, because the authorities feel that the Court ultimately will exonerate them. This Court strongly deprecates the attitude of the authority for their inaction in the matter of strict compliance of the order/direction of this Court. 13. However, the question whether an authority has understood the order in a particular manner and has conducted himself in accordance with such construction is one of the important factor to consider regarding wilful disobedience of the order by him/them, and that the Opposite parties have stated before this Court that they acted bonafide under the legal advice, and that there was no wilful intention on their part to flout or disregard the order/direction of this Court and has also tendered unqualified apology, this Court disposes of this M.J.C. application with a direction to the Board to reinstate the petitioner on the post of unskilled khalasi forthwith and to report to this Court by filing affidavit day after tomorrow when the matter will be on the Board for consideration on the question of bonafide of the Contemnor-Opposite parties. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, where the petitioner was terminated on account of the fact that he had not submitted the required certificate as per provision of Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, this Court makes it clear that he shall not be entitled to get his back wages on account of his reinstatement by virtue of this order.