Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 512 (GAU)

Tonmoy Choudhury v. Mrinal Kumar Baruah

2004-09-02

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2004
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The original Petitioner in this proceeding retired from service on 31.08.95 on attaining the age of superannuation. When he was not paid his pensionary and other retirement benefits, he approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 880/2000 in which, by judgment and order dated 30.05.2001, direction was issued to pay the same within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment by the Respondents. Apart from awarding interest on the accrued amounts under different heads, it was also provided that on failure to pay the retirement benefits as ordered, same would carry interest @ 18% per annum. 2. The said directions are yet to be implemented. Non-responsive attitude of the Respondents forced the Petitioner to initiate this contempt proceeding. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the proceeding, he died on 18.08.2002 leaving behind his legal heirs who have stepped into his shoes and are persuing this proceeding. Thus a man who retired from service way back in August, 1995 not only did not get his retirement dues during his lifetime, inspite of the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court, but even after his death, his legal heirs also are yet to receive the same. Long nine years have passed and yet the Respondents are sitting over the matter on this or that plea. 3. The relevant facts are already available in the judgment and order dated 30.05.2001 in WP(C) No. 880/2000. The directions contained therein are as follows : i) The State/Respondents shall make payment of all the pensionary/retirement benefits including pension and Gratuity to the Petitioner with 12% interest per annum from 01.03.96 being the date after expiry of six months from the date of superannuation, i.e. 31.08.95 till the date of payment of all the retirement dues and benefits to the Petitioner. ii) The State/Respondents shall pay the amount of Rs. 23,283/- incurred as travelling expenses, LTC expenses for the period of 1991-95 with an interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from today till final payment of the same. iii) The State/Respondents shall make payment of upgraded scale of pay of Class-I officer from 05.12.92 to 31.08.95 together with interest @ 12% per annum from today till final payment of the same. 12% per annum from today till final payment of the same. iii) The State/Respondents shall make payment of upgraded scale of pay of Class-I officer from 05.12.92 to 31.08.95 together with interest @ 12% per annum from today till final payment of the same. Necessary compliance of the direction indicated above shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of interest shall be paid @ 18% per annum. 4. The observations made by this Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment are quoted below : 9. It is a matter of tragedy and scourge to a retired person who is yet to get his legitimate Pension and Gratuity after his retirement due to apathy and non-chalat attitude or Government. A retired Government employee seems to be neglected and shabbily treated by the State Government who does not pay the retirement benefit in time and he is compelled to run from pillar to post with a begging bowl. It is really unfortunate and disgusting inspite of paying the retirement dues in time to the Petitioner in the instant case the Government has come with a plea, that too after filing of the Writ Petition, that since the Petitioner was involved in some financial irregularities during the period from 03.06.92 to 05.11.93, finalisation of his Pension benefits was delayed. 11. Admittedly there is considerable delay for payment of such Pensionary benefits to the Petitioner, Furthermore, I totally disapprove the explanation put forward on behalf of the State/Respondents for the delay in payment of Pensionary benefits to the Petitioner. Accordingly, having regard to the aforesaid decisions, I hold that Petitioner is entitled to the payment of interest also due to delay caused in payment of such retirement benefits. 5. The Respondents remained unperturbed by the aforesaid observations and directions of this Court. All out efforts made by the Petitioner to get the judgment implemented proved abortive. Having no other alternative, the Petitioner initiated the present contempt proceeding, but before he could get the benefits of the judgment, he left this world on 18.08.2002. 6. Notice on the contempt petition was issued on 08.04.2002. After service of notice on the Respondents, learned Counsel made appearance on their behalf recorded in the order dated 19.07.2002. Having no other alternative, the Petitioner initiated the present contempt proceeding, but before he could get the benefits of the judgment, he left this world on 18.08.2002. 6. Notice on the contempt petition was issued on 08.04.2002. After service of notice on the Respondents, learned Counsel made appearance on their behalf recorded in the order dated 19.07.2002. On 07.02.2003, a submission was made on behalf of Respondent No. 1 that efforts were being made to comply with the directions of this Court. Nothing happened thereafter and on 18.07.2003, further submission was made on behalf of the Respondents that the matter regarding regularisation was being placed before the Cabinet for consideration and approval. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed after four weeks. Nothing happened thereafter also. Respondents kept on taking time on this or that plea without filing any show cause reply. 7. On 24.02.04, this Court noticing that the judgment in question was yet to be implemented and that the Respondents had not filed any affidavit asked the learned Counsel for the Respondents to clarify the position in the matter and he once again prayed for time. This Court ordered personal appearance of the Respondents on failure to explain the delay in implementing the directions contained in the judgment. Even thereafter also no explanation was forthcoming from the Respondents. Situated thus, this Court by order dated 23.06.2004 after recording that the aforesaid judgment and order had been violated by the Respondents intentionally, directed for their personal appearance on 21.07.2004, after drawing contempt proceeding, to answer the charge. 8. All the Respondents appeared in Court on 21.07.2004 and the learned Counsel for the Respondents prayed for further time to file an additional affidavit in addition to the one filed on 26.02.2004 by the Respondent No. 1. Prayer was allowed and time was granted till 26.07.2004 on which date, individual affidavits were filed by all the three Respondents. 9. I have heard Mr. JP Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Shariff, learned Counsel for the Respondents. Mr. Shariff also produced the records pertaining to the case of the Petitioner for which direction was issued. While Mr. JP Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner referring to the admitted facts as discussed above, submitted that it was a clear case of contempt requiring appropriate action against the Respondents and effective implementation of the judgment, Mr. Mr. Shariff also produced the records pertaining to the case of the Petitioner for which direction was issued. While Mr. JP Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner referring to the admitted facts as discussed above, submitted that it was a clear case of contempt requiring appropriate action against the Respondents and effective implementation of the judgment, Mr. Shariff, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that there is no deliberate and willful violation of the judgment of this Court. He submitted that the Respondents No. 2 and 3 are not necessary party to this proceeding and that the Respondent No. 1 having taken all action towards implementation of the judgment and the delay having occurred mainly because of the formalities to be observed, the Respondent No. 1 is not liable for any contempt proceeding. He placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court as reported in (2003) 11 SCC 01 (Ashok Paper Kamgar v. Dharam Godha and Ors.). He also referred to certain payments made in favour of the Petitioner on 18.07.2001 such as provisional pension of Rs. 39,528/-, leave encashment amounting to Rs. 44,440/- and Group Insurance Scheme amount of Rs. 8,788/-. According to Mr. Shariff, the judgment of this Court was brought to the notice of the Respondent No. 1 on 20.07.01. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. I have also considered the materials available on records including the records produced by Mr. Shariff. 11. I first proceed to deal with the individual pleas of the Respondents in their affidavits. The Respondent No. 2 is the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Dept. of A.H. and Veterinary in which the Petitioner had worked. The Respondent No. 3 is the Director of the Department. The Respondent No. 1 is the Commissioner and Secretary of the Department. In the writ petition, the party Respondents were as follows : 1. State of Assam, represented by Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Veterinary Department Dispur, Assam 2. The Director, A.H. and Veterinary Department, Chenikuthi, P.O. Guwahati-3. 3. The Accountant General, (A and E) Assam, Bhangagarh, Guwahati-5. 4. The Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance (Esstt. A) Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 5. The Deputy Director (PTS) Barapetta Livestock Farm, P.O. Barapetta. 12. The directions in the judgment were issued to the State/Respondents. The Director, A.H. and Veterinary Department, Chenikuthi, P.O. Guwahati-3. 3. The Accountant General, (A and E) Assam, Bhangagarh, Guwahati-5. 4. The Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance (Esstt. A) Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 5. The Deputy Director (PTS) Barapetta Livestock Farm, P.O. Barapetta. 12. The directions in the judgment were issued to the State/Respondents. It is the specific plea of the Respondent No. 2 that he being not a party to the writ proceeding, he is not responsible for any contempt and that there is no lawful ground to implead him as party Respondent. He asserts that there is no question of non-compliance of the judgment and order on his part. The Respondent No. 3 on the other hand has taken the following pleas to submit that he is not guilty of any contempt. (i) The Petitioner committed certain irregularities during 1992-93. (ii) The Petitioner was promoted as Fodder Development Officer which is a Class-I Gazetted post meant for a technical person. The Petitioner being a non-technical person, his promotion by Govt. order dated 04.06.90 was doubtful and therefore, the genuineness of the same has to be ascertained to settle the matter relating to pensionary benefits payable to the Petitioner. (iii) The Respondent No. 3 immediately on receipt of the copy of the judgment forwarded the same to the Govt. for doing the needful by his letter dated 24.09.2001. (iv) The aforesaid promotion of the Petitioner as Fodder Development Officer was in contravention of the relevant Service Rules and thus the Cabinet approval is required for regularisation of the same. 13. The Respondent No. 1 in his first affidavit filed on 26.02.2004 apart from reiterating the stand in the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 3, has stated as to how from July, 2001 he has been persuing the matter with different authorities of the Govt. Departments for regularisation of the alleged illegal promotion of the Petitioner as Fodder Development Officer. In the additional affidavit he has highlighted as to how provisional pension for one year w.e.f. 01.09.95 has been paid to the Petitioner on 18.07.2001 alongwith the leave encashment and GIS dues. He has also stated about his transfer from the Deptt. w.e.f. 21.07.2004. As regards the payment of TA/LTC as per direction of this Court, he has stated that sanction order dated 13.07.2004 has been issued for payment of Rs. 30,268/-. He has also stated about his transfer from the Deptt. w.e.f. 21.07.2004. As regards the payment of TA/LTC as per direction of this Court, he has stated that sanction order dated 13.07.2004 has been issued for payment of Rs. 30,268/-. He has once again reiterated the stand of requirement of approval of the Cabinet to regularise the promotion of the Petitioner. He has also stated as to how, communications have been made with various Departments for early settlement of the matter. He has also stated that without finalisation/regularisation of the promotion of the Petitioner to Class-I Gazetted post, it would not be useful to send the pension papers to AG for fixation of pension etc. Non disbursement of GPF money to the Petitioner or his legal heirs has been attributed to them by stating that in absence of application in prescribed form along with AG's GPF statement proposal for withdrawal of the same could not be sent to the AG office. 14. As regards the plea of the Respondent No. 2 that he being not a party to the writ proceeding, he is not responsible for compliance of the directions contained in the judgment, it can only be said that such a stand is irresponsible and does not behove of a responsible officer like Secretary to the Govt. of Assam of the concerned Department. He is the Secretary of the Department in which the Petitioner had worked. The direction of this Court as noticed above was to the State/Respondents. If the plea of the Respondents No. 2 is to be accepted, can it be said that he does not represent the State in the Department in which he is the Secretary? 15. I have gone through the records produced by the learned Counsel for the Respondents/contemners. As per office note dated 10.07.01 at page 15 of the file bearing No. 56/2001, the Petitioner had already submitted his pension papers vide serial No. 1-40u in the link file No. VFV.72/97. By the same note information relating to actual amount was suggested to be obtained from the Director (Respondent No. 3). In the office note dated 16.07.01 put up to the Under Secretary, it was indicated that no departmental proceeding was pending against the Petitioner. Thereafter, various notes and counter notes followed following the judgment of this Court. Views of the legal remembrancer was obtained on 08.08.01. In the office note dated 16.07.01 put up to the Under Secretary, it was indicated that no departmental proceeding was pending against the Petitioner. Thereafter, various notes and counter notes followed following the judgment of this Court. Views of the legal remembrancer was obtained on 08.08.01. As per the said view the directions as contained in the judgment was directed to be complied with. At page 23 of the file, the note dated 03.10.01 indicates that the Director did not submit the required information as was called for relating to the final settlement dues of the Petitioner and that he had simply forwarded the copy of the judgment. By the said note it was suggested to request the Director to submit necessary proposal with detailed amount required for the purpose in reference to the earlier letter addressed to him. Thereafter, by note dated 12.11.01 once again it was indicated that required information had not been furnished by the Director. 16. By note dated 11.12.01 at page 27 of the file, once again it was indicated that the Director (Respondent No. 3) had not furnished the information relating to actual amount payable to the Petitioner. Suggestion was also made to pay the provisional pension. The note further indicated the receipt of pension papers from the Petitioner. Further note was put up on 08.01.02 indicating the calculation of provisional pension payable to the Petitioner. A note was put up to the Secretary (Respondent No. 2) regarding the development of the case who in turn put up a note to the Respondent No. 1 on 04.06.02 suggesting for engagement of an Advocate to defend the Respondents in the contempt case. There are further notes in the file indicating that the matter was dealt with by the Respondent No. 2 who in his affidavit has disowned his responsibility in the matter, he being not a party to the writ proceeding. A note was put up to him on 25.06.02 (page 43 of the file) indicating issuance of pay slip in favour of the Petitioner in the Gazetted status and the note of the Chief Secretary and the view furnished by the Legal Remembrancer suggesting action as per order of this Court. The Secretary by his note dated 26.06.02 in response to the aforesaid note put up a note to the Respondent No. 1 without dealing with the suggestions. The Secretary by his note dated 26.06.02 in response to the aforesaid note put up a note to the Respondent No. 1 without dealing with the suggestions. Instead, he only suggested regarding engagement of an Advocate to defend the Respondents in the contempt case. However, he suggested for moving to Personnel and Finance Department. 17. The matter proceeded in the above manner without attending the real issue, i.e. compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court. As against the plea of the Respondent No. 2 that he is not responsible for implementation of the order of this Court, the file produced by the learned Counsel for the Respondents indicates his involvement in the decision making process. On receipt of the contempt notice from this Court, the Respondents gave more indulgence towards the pleas to be taken to defend their case instead of taking any early steps for implementation of the said order, so much so that even for substitution of the name of the Petitioner by this legal heirs for which an application was moved, a note was put up to the Respondent No. 1 on 20.08.03 and on that basis the suggestion was made on 03.03.03 to obtain the views of the legal remembrancer. The matter proceeded further and eventually it was agreed that substitution of the legal heirs was permissible. 18. Amidst the aforesaid progress of the matter at snail's pace, an idea was mooted for preparation of a Cabinet Memorandum for regularisation of the promotion of the Petitioner to the Gazetted rank. The matter kept on proceeding on that basis without any finality. 19. The involvement of the Respondent No. 2 in the matter is further fortified from his letter dated 14.05.02 addressed to the Accountant General (hereinafter referred as AG), Assam in reference to the writ proceeding which is available at page 149 of the file. It is also on record as evident from the letter dated 13.03.02 issued by the Under Secretary, A.H. and Veterinary Department to the AG, Assam, that the pay slip in respect of the promotional post of the Petitioner was already issued to the Petitioner. In fact, the file also contains the pay slip of the Petitioner describing him as Fodder Development Officer (hereinafter referred as F.D.O.) and such pay slip was issued on 02.02.95 as available at page 141 of the file. In fact, the file also contains the pay slip of the Petitioner describing him as Fodder Development Officer (hereinafter referred as F.D.O.) and such pay slip was issued on 02.02.95 as available at page 141 of the file. The file also contains the notification dated 04.06.90 by which the Petitioner was allowed to officiate as F.D.O. at Silchar. The notification is available at page 135 of the file. The file also contains the documents relating to fixation of pay of the Petitioner under F.R. 22(i)(a)(i) w.e.f. 05.12.92. His retirement from service was notified by order dated 21.08.95 issued by the Director describing him as F.D.O. 20. Amidst the aforesaid movement of the case of the Petitioner on papers, the Petitioner repeatedly urged the Respondents by his various letters such as dated 11.06.01, 01.10.01 etc. praying for immediate payment of the retirement and other benefits. He also mentioned in his letter dated 01.10.01 about his pecuniary condition and ailing health having suffered from heart disease. However, nothing could move the Respondents and eventually the Petitioner breathed his last on 18.08.02 without the said pensionary and other retirement benefits. 21. The records also contained the letter dated 21.06.01 issued by the Senior Deputy Accountant General to the Respondent No. 1 in reference to the aforesaid judgment of this Court intimating that the pension papers of the Petitioner have not been received by the office and indicating that the role of the AG office relating to authorization of pensionary benefits in respect of the State Govt. officials starts only on receipt of their pension papers duly forwarded by the respective departmental authority. In the letter it was further stated that in absence of pension papers, no action could be taken in authorising pension any benefits to the Petitioner. A request was made to forward the pension papers in respect of the Petitioner for action at their end. 22. In reference to a letter dated 05.02.04, the AG, Assam wrote a letter to the Secretary (Respondent No. 2) on 15.03.04 forwarding a pay statement in respect of the Petitioner describing him as F.D.O. and showing the fixation of pay in the upgraded scale of Class-I officer from 05.12.92 to 31.08.95 in terms of Govt. notifications dated 04.12.92 and 26.05.99. In reference to a letter dated 05.02.04, the AG, Assam wrote a letter to the Secretary (Respondent No. 2) on 15.03.04 forwarding a pay statement in respect of the Petitioner describing him as F.D.O. and showing the fixation of pay in the upgraded scale of Class-I officer from 05.12.92 to 31.08.95 in terms of Govt. notifications dated 04.12.92 and 26.05.99. The Director of A.H. and Veterinary Department (Respondent No. 3) on 05.05.04 wrote a letter to the Manager, regional Fodder Seed Production firm, Matia, Goalpara wherein the Petitioner had worked, requesting to furnish the pay statement of the Petitioner during the period from 05.12.92 to 31.08.95 indicating that the information was urgently required towards compliance of the aforesaid judgment of this Court. 23. A copy of the aforesaid letter dated 15.03.04 issued by the AG, Assam to the Respondent No. 2 was once again forwarded by letter dated 24.03.04 to the Respondent No. 2. 24. The aforesaid revelations made from the records, lead to two irresistible conclusions that- (i) there was direct involvement of the Respondent No. 2 as the Secretary of the Department and (ii) there is total apathy and inaction on the part of the Respondents towards finalisation of the matter relating to the pensionary and other benefits admissible to the Petitioner, even leaving aside the direction of this Court as contained in the aforesaid judgment the Respondent No. 2 has offered his defence in the contempt proceeding by filing his affidavit and only contending that he being not a part to the writ proceeding, there is no question of any violation of the directions as contained in the aforesaid judgment of this Court. While offering such a defence, he totally ignored and suppressed his involvement in the entire episode as the Secretary of the Department. As reflected above, there are enough materials in the file to show his direct involvement in the matter. 25. The direction of this Court was to the State/Respondents. Thus, the Respondent No. 2 being a representative of the State Govt. cannot absolve himself from the liability to implement the judgment in its letter and spirit, more particularly when the same has attained its finality. The judgment was brought to his notice and he knew the directions contained therein. 25. The direction of this Court was to the State/Respondents. Thus, the Respondent No. 2 being a representative of the State Govt. cannot absolve himself from the liability to implement the judgment in its letter and spirit, more particularly when the same has attained its finality. The judgment was brought to his notice and he knew the directions contained therein. In fact, he is involved in the matter in his capacity as Secretary of the Department and furnished various notes and opinions as reflected in the record. He has offered no other defence to the contempt proceeding initiated against him. Although the contempt notice was received by him, he did not care to respond the same and it was only after the direction for personal appearance, he submitted his reply on 21.07.04 and never bothered to respond to the contempt notice before. Thus, in absence of any defence to the contempt proceeding drawn up against him and also having regard to his conduct as reflected above, he cannot absolve himself from the liability of contempt of this Court. 26. As regards the plea of the Respondents No. 1 and 3 relating to the alleged irregularity committed by the Petitioner, same very plea was raised in the affidavit in opposition filed in the writ proceeding. This Court after dealing with such pleas passed the final judgment and order issuing the aforesaid directions. Thus the Respondents cannot and could not have raised the same very pleas as their defence in the contempt proceeding. After going through the entire file as produced by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, there is no manner of doubt that the Respondents kept on dilly dallying with the matter, even after the death of the Petitioner. It is a unique case of total apathy on the part of the Respondents so much so that the representations of the Petitioner highlighting his financial condition and his heart ailment had no impact on the Respondents. They remained unmoved even after the death of the Petitioner, rather sought for opinion of the regal Remembrancer as to whether the legal heirs of the Petitioner could substitute the Petitioner stepping into his shoes. 27. The Respondents No. 1 had taken the plea of non-submission of the pension papers by the Petitioner. The records have revealed otherwise. As noticed above, it was in 2001 itself the Petitioner submitted his pension papers. 27. The Respondents No. 1 had taken the plea of non-submission of the pension papers by the Petitioner. The records have revealed otherwise. As noticed above, it was in 2001 itself the Petitioner submitted his pension papers. The Respondent No. 3 did not furnish the required information as was sought for from him in time and this delayed the matter considerably. The Respondent No. 1 in his affidavit has taken a specific plea of non-submission of pension papers by the Petitioner which is belied by the aforesaid nothings in the file. To that extent he has made a false statement on oath before this Court. 28. In a nutshell, what is the defence of the Respodents No. 1 and 3 and for that matter all the Respondents? According to them, the Petitioner was not eligible for promotion as a Class-I Officer in the Gazetted rank. However, in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court, with a view to grant him the benefits of promotion, same was required to be regularized through Cabinet approval. Even if this defence is taken to be a plausible defence, what about the directions contained in the judgment and order? There is no answer to the same from the Respondents. The Respondent No. 1 in his additional affidavit filed on 21.07.04 has stated in paragraph 4(i) that the Petitioner was not entitled to promotion as F.D.O. and as such without regularization of the matter, it would have been not useful to send his pension papers to AG for fixation of pension etc. By making such a statement, the Respondent No. 1 has acknowledge the receipt of the pension papers from the Petitioner and yet has made a statement that the Petitioner and his legal heirs did not submit the pension papers. The records clearly revealed submission of pension papers by the Petitioner. After his death, if any further formalities were required to be carried out by his legal heirs, it was incumbent on the part of the Respondents to ask them to do so. However, most regretfully the Respondent No. 1 has made statements in the affidavit that due to non receipt of application either from the Petitioner (the deceased or has legal heirs), GPF withdrawal proposal could not be sent to AG, Assam. Did the Respondents ask for such application from his legal heirs? However, most regretfully the Respondent No. 1 has made statements in the affidavit that due to non receipt of application either from the Petitioner (the deceased or has legal heirs), GPF withdrawal proposal could not be sent to AG, Assam. Did the Respondents ask for such application from his legal heirs? The answer, as revealed by the records, is 'No. 29. In the impugned judgment, there are altogether three directions as extracted above. As per the first direction, the Petitioner was to be paid his pensionary/retirement benefits with 12% interest per annum from 01.03.96 being the date expiry of six months from the date of superannuation, i.e. from 31.08.95. By the second direction, the Respondents were directed to pay the amount of Rs. 23,283/-incurred as TA and LTC expenses for the period of 1991-95 with the interest of 12% per annum. By the third direction, the Respondents were directed to pay the upgraded scale of pay of Class-I Officer from 05.12.92 to 31.12.95 together with interest @ 12% per annum. All the three direction were directed to be complied with within two months and on failure to do so, a further liability of 18% interest per annum was ordered. 30. Admittedly none of the directions has been complied with by the Respondents. As noticed above, the only plea raised by the Respondents is that the promotion of the Petitioner as a Class-I Gazetted Officer (F.D.O.) was not regular and for the purpose of regularization, Cabinet approval was required and accordingly after obtaining necessary approval etc. the Cabinet Memorandum has been prepared and now awaits for approval of the Cabinet. The question is two fold, i.e. (i) is this plea tenable and (ii) even if so, can the Respondents sit over the directions in respect of No. (i) and (ii). The Respondents have stated in the affidavit that the Petitioner was already paid provisional pension of Rs. 39,528/-. From the records it has been gathered that such payment was only for one year w.e.f. 01.09.95 and that too only on 18.07.01, i.e. after six years of the retirement of the Petitioner from service in August, 1995. 31. There is no answer from the Respondents as to why the Petitioner could not even paid his provisional pension for the balance period. There is also no answer as to why the direction for payment of LTC amount etc. could not be complied with. 31. There is no answer from the Respondents as to why the Petitioner could not even paid his provisional pension for the balance period. There is also no answer as to why the direction for payment of LTC amount etc. could not be complied with. They stopped the payments to the Petitioner only on the ground of some doubt relating to promotion of the Petitioner as a Class-I Gazetted officer. It was on that count, as per their own idea they noted the proposal for Cabinet Memorandum and approval thereof by the Govt., which, according to my considered opinion, was by way of an excuse which eventually delayed the matter so much so that even after nine years of retirement of the Petitioner, he and now this family members have not been paid the pensionary and other retirement benefits even defying the judgment and order of this Court. 32. As noticed above, the file contains the order of promotion of the Petitioner as F.D.O. The promotion of the Petitioner was notified by a notification dated 04.06.90. There was no objection to the same and the Petitioner retired from service on that basis. His retirement from service was notified by order dated 21.08.95 issued by the Director, A.H. and Veterinary Department describing him as F.D.O. The order dated 21.08.95 was annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-IV. As regards the up gradation of pay in respect of Class-I officer w.e.f. 05.12.92, the order of the Governor dated 05.12.92 was annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-I. It was on that basis, the judgment and order in question was passed containing the aforementioned directions. After the promotion of the Petitioner as Class-I Gazetted Officer and his retirement on that basis, there is no question of obtaining any cabinet approval for regularization of his promotion as Class-I Gazetted Officer and to extend him with the up gradation benefits on that basis. The anomalous situation is the creation of the Respondents. Even assuming that any such regularization is required and the process towards accomplishment of the same was time consuming, there is no explanation from the Respondents as to why the other directions or even the provisional pension could not be paid to the Petitioner for the last nine years. The anomalous situation is the creation of the Respondents. Even assuming that any such regularization is required and the process towards accomplishment of the same was time consuming, there is no explanation from the Respondents as to why the other directions or even the provisional pension could not be paid to the Petitioner for the last nine years. The so called regularization through Cabinet approval, cannot and could not have stalled the process towards compliance of other directions of this Court and payment of even the provisional pension to the Petitioner. Even the G.P.F. amount of the Petitioner has not been paid. 33. I now deal with the proposal mooted by the Respondents for Cabinet approval of the promotion of the Petitioner as Class-I Gazetted Officer. Same was never the plea of the Respondents in the writ proceeding. The Petitioner after order of promotion, discharged his function in the promotional post. He was issued with pay slip by the AG in respect of the promotional post. He was made to retire on that basis by issuing notification describing him as F.D.O. In the affidavit also, it is not the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner was illegally promoted or that he had some hand in the order of promotion. They have simply expressed some doubt. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the Petitioner stated about his promotion as a Class-I Gazetted Officer w.e.f. 01.09.90 to which the Respondents in their affidavit offered no comments. Thus in the writ proceeding, his promotion as a Class-I Gazetted officer was undisputed. It is only after the judgment and the directions, the Respondents had doubts about his promotion and mooted the idea of Cabinet approval, which was totally uncalled for. 34. There is no question of any regularization of the promotion of the Petitioner, when he was promoted by issuance of notification, issued with pay slips and retire on that basis. Unnecessary delaying tactics adopted by the Respondents is writ large on the face of it. Never such plea was raised during his service tenure and the Petitioner retired from service occupying the promotional post. After the judgment of this Court which has since attained finality, there is no question of any Cabinet approval etc. 35. Unnecessary delaying tactics adopted by the Respondents is writ large on the face of it. Never such plea was raised during his service tenure and the Petitioner retired from service occupying the promotional post. After the judgment of this Court which has since attained finality, there is no question of any Cabinet approval etc. 35. Perusal of the file clearly reflects the slow and encumbered decisions of the Respondents and their movement with hesitation and debates, consultation and irrelevant consideration, speaking through papers and movement horizontally and vertically in total defiance of the directions contained in the judgment. In the process, the Petitioner after awaiting for long seven years to get his dues left for heavenly abode-; leaving his family members in distress and now even the family members after nine years of retirement of the Petitioner are yet to receive the dues payable to the Petitioner. 36. Mr. Shariff, learned Counsel for the Respondents who relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashok Pande v. Union of India (supra) tried to emphasise that since approval of the Cabinet Memorandum is not in the hands of the Respondents, they are not responsible for any violation of the judgment and order in question. In the said case, the Apex Court dealing with the question of willful and deliberate act or omission constituting contempt of Court, observed that to hold one guilty of contempt of Court for violation of any order, the order should be of such a nature as to be capable of execution in ordinary circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should be dependent either wholly or in part upon any act or opinion of a third party for its compliance. 37. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court does not give any aid to the defence of the Respondents. In that case, the Apex Court also emphasized that each case will have to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, everything is in the hands of the Respondents. As already observed above, even if any Cabinet approval is required to be obtained towards normalising the promotion of the Petitioner, there is no explanation forthcoming from the Respondents as to why the directions contained in the judgment could not be implemented in respect of the other parts. In the instant case, everything is in the hands of the Respondents. As already observed above, even if any Cabinet approval is required to be obtained towards normalising the promotion of the Petitioner, there is no explanation forthcoming from the Respondents as to why the directions contained in the judgment could not be implemented in respect of the other parts. There is also no explanation as to why even the provisional pension and GPF money payable to the Petitioner could not be paid to them. The apathy and non-responsive attitude of the Respondents stare on the face of it. The Apex Court in the case of Kapil Deo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. as reported in (1999) 7 SCC 569 observed as follows : Judicial orders are to be properly understood and complied with. Even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience particularly when the attention of the person is drawn to the court's orders and its implications. Disobedience of the courts order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which our system of governance is based. Power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent preservation of the course of justice. 38. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court further observed as follows : In his famous passage, Lord Diplock in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. said that there is also "an element of public policy in pursuing civil contempt, since administration of justice would be undermined if the order of any court of law could be disregarded with impunity. Jurisdiction to punish for contempt exists to provide ultimate sanction against the person who refuses to comply with the order of the court or disregards the order continuously. Initiation of contempt proceedings is not a substitute for execution proceedings through at times that purpose may also be achieved". 39. In the instant case there is no manner of doubt that the Respondents are guilty of contempt of court for willful and deliberate violation of the judgment and order dated 30.05.01 passed in WP(C) No. 880/2000. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kr. 39. In the instant case there is no manner of doubt that the Respondents are guilty of contempt of court for willful and deliberate violation of the judgment and order dated 30.05.01 passed in WP(C) No. 880/2000. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Panday as reported in (1998) 7 SCC 248 the foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice and as such no action can be permitted which may shake the very foundation itself. The Apex Court also emphasized in the case of Supreme Court Bar Assam v. Union of India as reported in (1998) 4 SCC 409 that the propose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law. The jurisdiction is not exercised to protect the dignity of an individual Judge but to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. Power to punish for contempt is for maintenance of effective legal system. 40. The essence of contempt is action or inaction amounting to an interference with obstruction to or having a tendency to interfere with or to obstruct the due administration of justice. Lowering the dignity of the Court or shaking the confidence of the public in it is reprehensible. An act constitutes contempt if it is calculated to or has the tendency of interfering with the due course of justice. The object of the discipline enforced by the Court in the case of contempt of Court is not to vindicate the dignity of the person of the Judge but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice. The confidence in Courts of justice which the public possess must in no way be tarnished, diminished or wiped out by contumacious behaviour of any person. 41. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, I am of the considered view that the Respondents are guilty of civil contempt of this Court for willful and deliberate violation of the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court. Even if the conduct of the Respondent is brought to the category of negligence and carelessness, same will also constitute and amount to disobedience of the aforesaid judgment of this Court as has been emphaised by the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Deo Prasad Shah (supra). Even if the conduct of the Respondent is brought to the category of negligence and carelessness, same will also constitute and amount to disobedience of the aforesaid judgment of this Court as has been emphaised by the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Deo Prasad Shah (supra). It is in that context, the Apex Court observed that the power to punish for contempt is necessary for maintenance of effective legal system and to prevent perversion of the course of justice. 42. In the instant case, as observed above, the Respondents merrily toyed with the judgment of this Court and even the contempt notice. In such a situation I am not inclined to accept the apology tendered by the Respondents in their affidavit in a most casual manner. It gives an impression that the Respondents are at liberty to defy the order of this Court and then to tender so-called apology as a routine affair to escape from the clutches of the contempt proceeding. The entire episode as reflected above, also gives an impression, as if the Respondents have got licence to flout the orders of this Court continuously with impunity. Such kind of approach on the part of the Respondents cannot be pardoned lest the same would hamper the maintenance of effective legal system and would lead to perversion of the course of justice. 43. After holding the Respondents guilty of contempt of this Court for willful and deliberate violation of the judgment and order dated 30.05.01 passed in WP(C) No. 880/2000, now the question necessarily arises is as to what punishment should be awarded to the Respondents. A question also arises as to whether mere punishment to the Respondents will meet the ends of justice leaving the Petitioners remediless as regards the entitlement of pensionary and other benefits as was ordered to be paid by this Court. 44. Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prescribes punishment for contempt of Court which is simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 2000/- or worth both. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, involved in this case, apart from awarding the punishment of imposition of fine of Rs. 2000/- or worth both. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, involved in this case, apart from awarding the punishment of imposition of fine of Rs. 2000/- to each of the contemners, in addition, the following orders are passed : (i) The Respondents shall implement the directions as contained in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 30.05.01 passed in WP(C) No. 880/2000 within 45 days from today with due intimation to the registry of this Court. The Chief Secretary of the State and the AG, Assam are also directed to ensure payment of the same within the stipulated period of 45 days. (ii) Such payment shall be made on the basis of the order of promotion dated 04.06.90 and the up gradation of pay affected by notification dated 05.12.92. It is made clear that there is no question of seeking any regularization of the promotion of the Petitioner since he has already been issued the pay slip by the AG, Assam in respect of his promotional post and that the Petitioner discharged his function in the promotional post and was made to retire on that basis. Nobody has questioned the validity of his promotion. Further, after the direction of this Court, there is no question of taking any approval of the Cabinet. Such a device adopted by the Respondents was totally uncalled for. (iii) The interest as was directed to be paid in the judgment and order shall be paid to the Petitioners with upto date account taking into consideration the directions of this Court as to the consequence of non-compliance of the directions contained in the judgment and order within a period of two months. (iv) The 18% interest per annum awarded by this Court in the event of non-compliance of the judgment and order of this Court within two months, shall be realised from the salary of each of the Respondents in equal proportion. The Chief Secretary to the govt. of Assam and the AG, Assam will take appropriate steps in this regard. (v) A cost of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded against the Respondents to be realised from each of them in equal proportion. (vi) In the event of non-compliance of the aforesaid directions within the aforesaid stipulated period of 45 days, in addition to the penalty of fine of Rs. (v) A cost of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded against the Respondents to be realised from each of them in equal proportion. (vi) In the event of non-compliance of the aforesaid directions within the aforesaid stipulated period of 45 days, in addition to the penalty of fine of Rs. 2000/- imposed on each of the Respondents, the penalty of simple imprisonment for a term of one month shall stand added to the penalty already awarded. Such imprisonment will commence immediately on expiry of 45 days in the event of non-compliance of the directions contained herein. 45. The contempt proceeding is answered as above. A copy of the judgment and order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary, Assam and AG, Assam immediately for their necessary perusal and follow up action. 46. The registry shall take appropriate steps towards execution of the penalty imposed on the Respondents and realisation of the cost.