Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 66 (GAU)

Sheo Balak Singh v. Harcharanjit Singh

2009-01-30

AMITAVA ROY

body2009
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. An appropriate penal action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short hereinafter also referred to as the Act) read with Rule 3 of the Contempt of Court (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977 (for short hereafter referred to as the Rules) and Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been solicited in the instant petition alleging deliberate and wilful violation of the judgment and order dated 13.02.2007 passed by this Court in WP (C) Nos. 4989/2006 and 4994/2006. 2. I have heard Mr. D.K. Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K. Goswami, Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. A.K. Goswami, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. N. Deka, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2, Mr. N. Deka, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3. Ms. R. Bora, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 is also heard. 3. The facts in brief constituting the preface of the imputations made, need to recorded at the outset. The Petitioner is a Superintending Engineer (Civil) (for short hereafter referred to as SE) serving in the General Reserve Engineering Force (for short hereafter also referred to as the GREF), under the Boarder Roads Development Board (hereafter for short referred to as the Board/BRDB) and is presently posted in HQ CE(P), Sampark, Jammu. He instituted WP(C)No. 4989/2006 under Article226 of the Constitution of India before this Court impugning, inter alia, a letter dated 12.05.2006 issued by the Brigadier DDG (Personnel) for Director General Border Roads. Prior thereto, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, BRDB has issued an order dated 03.01.2005 with the approval of the BRDB, whereby, the Superintending Engineers in the Functional Scale of pay of Rs. 14,300-18,300/-, were declared to be equivalent to the Colonels of the Army. A letter dated 06.01.2005 followed in the same lines and consequentially different posts at Project HQ were redesignated. It was, further provided therein that the interse seniority of SE(FS) and the Colonels would be with reference to the dates of assumption of the Functional Scale vis-a-vis that of local/acting rank by the Colonel respectively. Thereafter, the Under Secretary, Government of India, BRDB issued Anr. letter dated 10.06.2005, inter alia, stating that the SE's in the Functional Scale would also be equivalent to the Colonels of Army for the purpose of the Army Act. Thereafter, the Under Secretary, Government of India, BRDB issued Anr. letter dated 10.06.2005, inter alia, stating that the SE's in the Functional Scale would also be equivalent to the Colonels of Army for the purpose of the Army Act. Thereafter, by the notification published in the Gazette on 07.09.2005 equivalence between SE(FS) and Colonel of the Army for the purpose of Army Act, was proclaimed. The Director General. BRDB, by the impugned letter dated 12.05.2006 superseded his earlier letter dated 06.01.2005 and restored the status quo ante in the matter of equation of Superintending Engineers (FS) with the Colonel of the Army including the nomenclature of appointments as it existed prior to the letter dated 03.01.2005 issued by the Under Secretary. Government of India, BRDB. Contending inter alia, that the Director General, BRDB lacked authority in the matter prescribing the service conditions of the Petitioner, his appointing as well as cadre controlling authority being the Board and that the decision assailed, was arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenged the letter dated 12.05.2006 in WP (C) No. 4989/2006 seeking annulment thereof. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Petitioner initiated WP (C) No. 4994/2006 praying, inter alia, for an appropriate writ directing the Respondents therein to declare the equivalence of SE(FS) and a regular Colonel of Army by acting on the criteria as referred to therein. 4. On the completion of exchange of the pleadings, the petitions were heard. As the healing remained inconclusive, the same was postponed for two weeks. In between the Secretary, BRDB filed an affidavit on 08.02.2007 on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4, wherein, it was averred amongst Ors. that based on the advice of the Department of Personal and Training, the Government was contemplating to issue Anr. notification laying down the equivalent ranks in GREF and the Army for the purpose of Army Act, 1950, as applied to GREF as proposed in Annexure-IX thereto. It was prayed in this premise that the impugned circular dated 12.05.2006 and circulars issued by the Director General Border Roads to be treated as null and void, if not in consonance with the Government Notification dated 07.09.2005 and the notification proposed, Annexure-IX. It was prayed in this premise that the impugned circular dated 12.05.2006 and circulars issued by the Director General Border Roads to be treated as null and void, if not in consonance with the Government Notification dated 07.09.2005 and the notification proposed, Annexure-IX. It was further pleaded that acceding to the prayer of the Petitioner and on careful examination of the matter in consultation with the Department of Personal and Training, the proposed notification, Annexure-IX was being issued, whereby, the Superintending Engineers (FS) holding functional scale, have been equated with the Colonels of the regular Army, restoring the status quo as per the Director General Border Roads' letter dated 06.05.2005. This Court on 03.02.2007 after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and taking note of their pleadings and, in particular, the above affidavit, filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 disposed of the two writ petitions on the same date with the observation that in face of the averments and clarifications provided in paragraph Nos. 9 & 10 of the said affidavits and the draft notification, Annexure-IX thereto, no live issue subsisted for adjudication as the Government of India had taken a decision that SE (FS) in the GREF would be equivalent to the regular Colonel for all practical purposes and not only for the purposes of the Army Act. 5. The Petitioner has stated that during the pendency of the writ petitions he had been transferred from HQ 42 BRTE, Setuk, Tripura to HQ CE (P) Sampark at Jammu vide order dated 23.10.2006, pursuant whereto, he had joined the new assignment on 30.03.2007. The Respondent No. 3, however, by order dated 04.04.2007 posted him as SO-I (Planning) w.e.f. 30.03.2007. The Petitioner has asserted that the post of SO-I (Planning) is subordinate to that of Colonel in the organizational hierarchy and that the arrangement so effected, was in gross violation of the judgment and order dated 13.02.2007 of this Court. According to the Petitioner, inspite of the undertaking given to this Court in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. According to the Petitioner, inspite of the undertaking given to this Court in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 that the impugned letter dated 12.05.2006 and other related circulars would be treated as null and void and that the notification dated 12.02.2007, declared equivalence between SE (FS) and the Colonel of the Army for all purposes including interse seniority, no steps inconformity therewith were taken and instead he had been relegated to post lower in rank to that of the Colonel. Neither the impugned letter dated 12.05.2006 and the other related circulars have been recalled or nullified not the Organization Tree designed in the model of the impugned letter dated 12.05.2006, has been restructured as it was prior thereto. The Petitioner being aggrieved, submitted a representation on 09.04.2007 before the Respondent No. 3, expressing his inability to accept his posting as SO-I (Planning), contending that his placement under the Colonel (Works and Planning), had been in violation of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 13.02.2007. Though, the Respondent No. 3, by his letter dated 12.04.2007 intimated the Petitioner that a clarification in the matter, has been sought for from the Board, the Respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 03.05.2007 requiring him to explain as to why appropriate disciplinary action would not be taken against him by the Board for corresponding directly with the higher authority. This the Petitioner has maintained to be demonstrative of the recalcitrant and defiant disposition of the Respondents towards the judgment and order dated 13.02.2007 of this Court. 6. The Respondent No. 1, in his written reply, while tendering unconditional apology for any omission or delay in the matter of implementation of the decision of this Court, has stated that pursuant to the notification dated 12.02.2007 issued by the Ministry of Defence proclaiming equivalence of Superintending Engineer (Functional Scale) of the GREF and the Colonel of the Army, the Board had issued a letter dated 06.08.2007 requiring the Director General, BRDB to post the Petitioner as Director (Wks/Plg./Estg/Res). By a follow up letter dated 13.08.2007 compliance of the above direction was also insisted upon. By a follow up letter dated 13.08.2007 compliance of the above direction was also insisted upon. The Respondent No. 1, therefore, has contended that in view of the notification dated 12.02.2007 and the letters dated 06.08.2007 and 13.08.2007 addressed to the Director General, BRDB, who is responsible for implementing the same at the field level, the decision of this Court has been complied with in letter and spirit qua him 7. The Respondent No. 2, while affirming against the charge of violation or disobedience of the order dated 13.02.2007 of this Court, attested the authority of the Director General. BRDB in the matter of the service conditions of the Petitioner. According to the answering Respondent, the affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Board in the writ proceeding was in contradiction to the plea taken by the Ministry of Defence in similar cases before other Courts. This Respondent went on to contend that the contents of the said affidavit were neither sanctioned by the Board nor even discussed in any of its meetings. The stand taken in the said affidavit, was according to the answering Respondent, the individual untenable opinion of the Secretary of the Board and not that of the Board or the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence. While averring that the letter dated 06.01.2005 had not been approved by the Board and that the equivalence between the two categories of Officers, namely, the Colonel of the Army and the Superintending Engineer (FS) of the GREF had not been sanctioned by the Board, the power of the Secretary of the Board on the issue to take a policy decision was also questioned. A doubt as well, was expressed on the correctness of the averment of the Secretary of the Board that the contents of his affidavit had been approved by the Secretary Ministry of Defence on behalf of the Union of India and the Department of Personnel and Training. A doubt as well, was expressed on the correctness of the averment of the Secretary of the Board that the contents of his affidavit had been approved by the Secretary Ministry of Defence on behalf of the Union of India and the Department of Personnel and Training. While maintaining that the judgment and order of this Court has resulted in creation of equivalence between the rank of Colonel and Superintending Engineer (Functional Scale), which has not been countenanced by the Board and that instead as per the decisions of the various Central Administrative Tribunals on the issue, SE(FS) has been construed to be equivalent to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel to the Army, the answering Respondent has stated that pursuant to the order of this Court, the Petitioner has been accorded an independent assignment of SO-I (Planning) equating him with the rank of Colonel within their sanctioned establishment directly under the Chief Engineer, Project Sampark in the rank of Brigadier and not under any Colonel. A reference of letter No. BRDB ID No. BRDB/10/982/2006/GE dated 06.08.2007 has also been made, whereby, the post of SO-I (Planning) has been redesignated as Director (Planning). The Respondent, therefore, insisted that the order of this Court has been implemented. In his affidavit, the Respondent No. 3, also contended against indictment of violation and disobedience of the order of this Court. Referring to the order dated 04.04.2007, whereby the Petitioner was posted as SO-I (Planning), the deponent asserted that as thereby, he (Petitioner) had been placed directly under the Chief Engineer, his perception of being downgraded and humiliated is unfounded. The answering Respondent, while admitting the posting of the Petitioner as SO-1, clarified that thereby he had not been placed under the control of a Colonel in the Army. This Respondent also confirmed that the said post of the Petitioner had been redesignated as Director (Planning) in terms of the latest instructions received from the Director. BRDB. It has been contended as well, that Chief Engineer, HQ Sampark being not a party in the writ proceedings, the petition for contempt against him is not maintainable. 8. This Respondent also confirmed that the said post of the Petitioner had been redesignated as Director (Planning) in terms of the latest instructions received from the Director. BRDB. It has been contended as well, that Chief Engineer, HQ Sampark being not a party in the writ proceedings, the petition for contempt against him is not maintainable. 8. The Petitioner, in his reply to the counter to the Respondent No. 2, while reiterating that the said Respondents in continuing to act on the basis of the circular dated 12.05.2006, in the face of the judgment and order of this Court dated 13.02.2007, has displayed defiance thereto and has insisted that in full compliance of the aforementioned decision, the Respondents ought to have annulled the circular dated 12.05.2006 and suitably amended the Organization Tree by restoring the equivalence of SE(FS) and Colonels as per the letter 06.01.2005. The Petitioner reaffirmed that the Secretary of the Board had acted on its behalf and that any order or instruction and/or policy letter issued by his office is deemed to have its approval. It has been averred that as the cadre controller for Group-A and Group-B Officers, is the Board, orders on its behalf vis-a-vis them arc conveyed by its Secretary. The Petitioner asserted that as this Court having on an interpretation of the notification dated 12.02.2007 and the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 1, determined the equivalence between the SE(FC) and Colonel in the Army, the Respondent No. 2 was debarred from reopening the issue. The Petitioner maintained that the post of SO-I (Planning) is manned by an incumbent of the rank of Lieutenant Colonel as is apparent from the Organization Tree. Project Sampark, who is entrusted with the task of assisting the Director (Works). According to the Petitioner, the reason mentioned in the show cause notice, is frivolous and untenable as he had not violated any office Rule and/or Regulation by forwarding a copy of the judgment and order dated 13.02.2007 to the Secretary of the Board, HQ DGBR and his follow SE(FS) of GREF. 9. In their additional affidavits, the Respondent No. 2 & 3 have contended that the Organizational free has been revised based on the redesignation of SO-I (Planning) on the approval of the Board communicated vide its letter No. BRDB ID No. BRDB/10/982/2006/GE dated 06.08.2007. 9. In their additional affidavits, the Respondent No. 2 & 3 have contended that the Organizational free has been revised based on the redesignation of SO-I (Planning) on the approval of the Board communicated vide its letter No. BRDB ID No. BRDB/10/982/2006/GE dated 06.08.2007. The Respondent No. 3 in particular, has averred that the insertion in hand in the affidavit filed by him on 30.08.2007 was that of his Counsel, Brigadier, N. Deka (Retd.) on his instructions. Elaborating on this aspect, the Respondent No. 2 has further stated that the Board in terms of his letter dated 06.08.2007 having required that the redesignation ought to be carried out immediately, the Chief Engineer, Project Sampark was instructed to implement the same vide DGBR Fax No. 17303/2657/DGBR/22/LC-Sampark dated 29.08.2007. This Respondent also authenticated that the insertion in hand in his affidavit dated 30.08.2007 was that of his Counsel, N. Deka (Retd.) on his instructions. 10. The plea of the Respondent No. 3, in particular, bearing on revision of the Organization Tree at Project Sampark inconformity with the Board's letter dated 06.08.2007 has been dismissed by the Petitioner to be incorrect and misleading. By referring to the letter dated 27.09.2007, he has ventured to allege that the Organization Tree annexed by the Respondent No. 3 as Appendix-A to his additional affidavit is, therefore, a distorted document and not the one as approved by the Board. According to the Petitioner, the Organization Tree endorsed by the Board places the SE(FS) of GREF and a Colonel of the Army at par for all practical purposes in alignment with the determination of this Court. The Petitioner, thus, has asserted that the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, though instructed by the Board vide its letter dated 27.09.2007 to submit an additional affidavit enclosing the project organization tree as approved by it, they deliberately abstained from doing so and instead have produced a modified model thereof to suit their purpose. The Respondent No. 3, in reply, has stood by the Organization Tree accompanying his additional-affidavit to be based on the redesignation of SO-I (Planning) as Director (Planning) as communicated by the Board vide its letter dated 06.08.2007. The said Respondent has averred on oath that the letter dated 27.09.2007 referred to by the Petitioner has not been received. 11. The Respondent No. 3, in reply, has stood by the Organization Tree accompanying his additional-affidavit to be based on the redesignation of SO-I (Planning) as Director (Planning) as communicated by the Board vide its letter dated 06.08.2007. The said Respondent has averred on oath that the letter dated 27.09.2007 referred to by the Petitioner has not been received. 11. The Respondent No. 4, in his counter, while pointing out that the petition for contempt filed by the Petitioner, is not to be construed as a public interest litigation, or an endeavour to espouse a common cause, has alluded to a confusion prevailing over the issuance of the notification dated 12.02.2007. He has pleaded that as in the meantime, the order of this Court vis-a-vis the Petitioner has been implemented, the accusation of wilful and deliberate violation is untenable. 12. In the backdrop of the contentious pleadings as above, Mr. Misra, has emphatically argued that the Respondent having evidently not acted in terms of the letter and spirit of the judgment and order dated 13.02.2007 of this Court, they are to be adjudged guilty of contempt and suitably penalized in law. The learned Senior Counsel urged that the Respondents in unqualified implementation of the undertaking given to this Court, ought to have nullified the impugned circular dated 12.05.2006 and restored the equivalence between SE(FS) and Colonel of the Army as well as the Organization Tree in harmony therewith as on 06.01.2005. This Court, having on a scrutiny of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Board and the notification proposed inconsonance therewith, having accepted the equivalence between the SH(FS) and Colonel of the Army for all purposes and not only for the Army Act, the Respondents having failed to take the necessary consequential steps to ensure complete compliance thereof have desecrated their undertaking given before it and thus denigrated its majesty and authority in law rendering them liable for contempt, he urged. The Respondents having assured on oath a particular course of action leading this Court to close the proceedings on its satisfaction that no live issue survived to be adjudicated, their casual abstinence from taking the necessary initiatives to act in terms of their pleaded stand, is a conscious affront to the dignity and esteem of this Court and is thus liable for its contempt. Mr. Mr. Misra, while contending that in the face of the pleadings of the Board and the decision of this Court, no further debate in the instant proceeding on the issue, on merely reopening the same is permissible, has maintained that the purported redesignation of the post of SO-I (Planning) can by no means be construed to be in compliance of the order of this Court, but is only a pretext to squirm out the instant proceeding and to harass the Petitioner immediately on the disposal thereof. In all, the learned Senior Counsel, urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a stringent penal action on the Respondents is warranted to uphold the supremacy of the rule of law. In support of his contentions. Mr. Misra. has placed reliance on an extract from the Holsbury's Law of England 4th Edition and the decision of the Apex Court in. Balram Singh v. Bhikam Chand Jain and Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 246 , Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty and Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 259 . 13. Mr. Goswami, appearing for the Respondent No. 2, in reply has contended that the judgment and order of this Court being not one in rem and as in the meantime, necessary steps have been taken to redesignate the post of SO-I (Planning) held by the Petitioner to be Director (Planning), his imputation of deliberate and wilful violation thereof is wholly misconceived. The Petitioner is in his endeavour in the instant proceeding seeking to espouse a common cause, which per se, is beyond the determination made by this Court, he urged. Tracing the sequence of events from prior to the circular dated 03.01.2005. the learned Senior Counsel has agued that equivalence of SE(FS) with Colonel in the Army for all practical purposes has never been comprehended. According to Mr. Goswami, a bare reading of the affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Board in the writ proceeding would amply demonstrate this stance. The learned Senior Counsel with reference to the notification dated 12.02.2007 contended that the same also did not testify the comprehensive equivalence as is insisted upon by the Petitioner. Without prejudice to the above. Mr. Goswami has pleaded that the Petitioner, though not entitled, has been designated as Director (Planning) in deference to the order of this Court. The learned Senior Counsel with reference to the notification dated 12.02.2007 contended that the same also did not testify the comprehensive equivalence as is insisted upon by the Petitioner. Without prejudice to the above. Mr. Goswami has pleaded that the Petitioner, though not entitled, has been designated as Director (Planning) in deference to the order of this Court. All necessary steps as feasible having been taken by the Respondent No. 2 before his retirement on 30.09.2007, the charge of contempt of Court against him is, per se. untenable, he urged. 14. Mr. Deka. appearing for the Respondent No. 1 has pleaded that necessary steps for redesignation of the post of SO-I (Planning) held by the Petitioner as Director (Planning) having been taken and the resultant Organization Tree implemented in terms of the Board's letter dated 06.08.2007 and 30.08.2007, the accusation of contempt brought against the said Respondent in the instant proceeding is evidently unfounded. The learned Counsel, in particular offered his apologies for the hand written insertions in the affidavits of the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, contending that the same had to be done in the exigencies of the situation and the deadline pegged by this Court for submission of their pleadings. Mr. Deka, sought to draw sustenance for his submission from the decision of this Court rendered in Kali Bogo and Ors. v. Tabom Bam and Ors. 2008 (1) GLT 463. 15. Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3, also contended compliance of the order of this Court following the necessary instructions and/or clarifications received from the Board. Ms. Bora, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 has reiterated the stand. 16. I have extended my cautious consideration to the pleadings and the arguments advanced. The issue under scrutiny would logically warrant evaluation thereof on the measure of the judgment and order dated 13.02.2007 allegedly wilfully disobeyed by the Respondents. This adjudication would, therefore, proceed to analyze the debate generated by the aforementioned decision by the contents and purport thereof. The earlier round of litigation was precipitated by the letter dated 12.05.2006 issued by the Headquarters. Directorate General Border Roads, Seema Sadak Bhawan, New Delhi, restricting the equivalence between the Superintendent Engineer (F.S.) and the Colonel of the Army deputed to the GREF' only for the purposes of the Act. The earlier round of litigation was precipitated by the letter dated 12.05.2006 issued by the Headquarters. Directorate General Border Roads, Seema Sadak Bhawan, New Delhi, restricting the equivalence between the Superintendent Engineer (F.S.) and the Colonel of the Army deputed to the GREF' only for the purposes of the Act. The Petitioner assailed the legality and the validity thereof seeking its annulment and the restoration of the state of affairs as on 06.01.2005 whereby, according to him, such synonymy was also for all other purposes including protocol. The judgment and order dated 13.02.2007 reveals that in course of the hearing of the two writ petitions, an affidavit dated 08.02.2007 was filed by the Secretary, Border Roads Development Board, Ministry of Defence, on behalf of Respondents 1, 2 and 4 therein i.e. Union of India represented by the Commissioner and Secretary of the Department of Defence, Secretary Border Roads Development Board and Secretary. Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Government of India, New Delhi, respectively. Apt it would to extract para 9 and 10 of the said 'affidavit hereinbelow. 9. That the Government has taken note of the grievances of the Superintending Engineers (Civ) of BRES, and has examined the matter of equivalent ranks between Army Officers and BRES Engineers in consultation with the DOPT. Based on DOPT advice, the Govt. is issuing Anr. notification clearly laying down equivalent ranks in GREF and the army for the purpose of Army Act, 1950 as applied to General Reserve Engineer Force as mentioned in Annexure-IX. Consequently, it is prayed that Dte BBR's circular dated 12th May 2006 referred to above and other circulars issued by the Dte GBR in the matter may be treated as null and void if the same are not in consonance with the Govt. Notification dated 07th Sep. 2005 and the Notification proposed to be issued shortly (Annexure-IX). 10. That the Government has accepted the prayer of the Petitioners after careful examination of the matter in consultation with the DOPT (4th Respondent) and is issuing a necessary Gazette Notification to this effect as per Annexure-IX. Consequently the Superintending engineers holding functional scale have been equated at par with the Colonels of the Army and status quo has been restored as per Dte GBR letter dated 06th Jan 2005 as requested by the Petitioners. Consequently the Superintending engineers holding functional scale have been equated at par with the Colonels of the Army and status quo has been restored as per Dte GBR letter dated 06th Jan 2005 as requested by the Petitioners. This affidavit, demonstrates that it had been filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein in the capacity of the Secretary Border Roads Development Board in the Ministry of Defence proclaiming competence to do so on behalf of the Respondents 1, 2 and 4 aforementioned in the writ petition, in his official capacity. As is evident from the judgment and order of this Court, before rendering the same, the affidavit of the Respondent No. 3, Director General, Border Roads Development Board, projecting a contrary stand was taken note of. This Court eventually concluded thus: A consideration of the aforementioned two paragraphs of the affidavit dated 8.2.2007 along with the draft notifications (Annexure-IX) which is proposed to be notified in the official Gazette makes it abundantly clear that there is no live issue for adjudication in the instant writ petitions and that the Government of India has now taken a decision that Superintending Engineers (Functional Scale) in the GREF will be equivalent to regular Colonels for all practical purposes and not only for the purposes of the Army Act. The Court, therefore, is inclined to take the view that both the writ petitions may be appropriately closed on the aforesaid basis. 17. Axiomatically, therefore, this Court, on an appreciation of the pleadings of the parties concluded that the Government of India had taken a decision that the Superintending Engineer (FS) in the GREF would he equivalent to Colonel for all practical purposes and not only for those of the Act. Determining so, this Court closed the petitions observing that in the above premise no live issue survived for adjudication. For all intents and purposes this Court thus adjudged the equivalence between the Superintending Engineer (FS) in the GREF and the Colonel in the Army for all purposes signifying that the grievance of the Petitioner qua the order dated 12.05.2006 to the contrary and consequences ensuing therefrom stood redressed. Understandably this determination of the Court has to be comprehended in the perspective of the impugnment and the facts and circumstances attendant thereon and not dehors thereof. Understandably this determination of the Court has to be comprehended in the perspective of the impugnment and the facts and circumstances attendant thereon and not dehors thereof. As admittedly neither an appeal from this verdict has been preferred by the Respondents nor a review thereof has been sought for. it is irrefutably binding on them and thus implementable in its letter and spirit. Though noticeably no direction as such had been issued by this Court delineating the steps and measures to be adopted by the Respondents, they were obliged in law to act accordingly for the effectuation of the decision. 18. In the face of the admitted factual premise as above, the endeavours on the part of Respondents 2, 3 and 4 to portray their interpretation of the contemplated equivalence and the notification dated 12.02.2007 cannot be entertained as beyond the scope of the instant proceeding. The Respondents having abstained from assailing the decision of this Court in any higher forum, it is obviously obligatory for them to comply therewith sans any reservation. In the teeth of the determination of this Court, the order dated 04.04.2007, subsequent thereto, posting the Petitioner to a lower in rank is palpably incompatible with the findings recorded by this Court. Admittedly pursuant to the order dated 12.05.2006 impeached in the writ proceedings the post of Director (Planning) was dislodged from the Organization tree of HQCE(P), Sampark. As is obvious from the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 3 herein, the above posting of the Petitioner as SO-I had been in terms of the order dated 12.05.2006 which having regard to the determination made by this Court stood annulled for all practical purposes. This order by the Respondent No. 3, is thus patently antagonistic to the letter and spirit of the judgment and order dated 13.02.2007 of this Court. No reason what so ever has been cited by the Respondents to resort to this course of action. 19. Admittedly, however, following the letter No. BRDB ID BRDB/10/982/2006/GE dated 06.08.2007 of the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Border Road Development Board, issued after the institution of the instant contempt proceeding, directing the Directorate, Border Roads Development Board to post the Petitioner as Director (WKS/PLG/ESTG/RES), he was designated as Director, PLG HQ (C), Sampark. 19. Admittedly, however, following the letter No. BRDB ID BRDB/10/982/2006/GE dated 06.08.2007 of the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Border Road Development Board, issued after the institution of the instant contempt proceeding, directing the Directorate, Border Roads Development Board to post the Petitioner as Director (WKS/PLG/ESTG/RES), he was designated as Director, PLG HQ (C), Sampark. Significantly the letter dated 6.8.2007 acknowledges the legitimacy of the claim of the Petitioner to be posted as Director (WKS/PLG/ESTG/RES), which is equivalent to Colonel of the Army as per the notification dated 12.02.2007 and the Directorate BDR letter dated 06.01.2005. The letter also discloses that the same had the approval of the Secretary, Defence. The above fact was scripted in the affidavit of the Respondent No. 2 in the hand of their Counsel Mr. N. Deka apparently after the document had been notarized with the Notary Public, Delhi, on 27.08.2007. A similar inscription in the affidavit of the Respondent No. 3 has also been made by his Counsel above named after the same had been affirmed before the Notary Public, Jammu on 28.08.2007. This step as the letter dated 06.08.2007 reveals has been as a response to the process issued in the contempt proceeding. As no persuasive and cogent reason is forthcoming for acting in a manner repugnant to the equivalence determined by this Court, the post of SO-I being lower in rank than that of the Colonel as is conspicuous from the Organization tree, the plea that the Petitioner's above posting notwithstanding he had been placed under the control of the Chief Engineer and not the Colonel, is not of any extenuating relevance. Having regard to the hierarchical model patterned by the organization tree, placement of the Petitioner as SO-I had been in utter derogation of the decision of this Court. 20. The order dated 12.05.2006 seeking to restrict the equivalence of the post of Superintending Engineer (FS) with that of the Colonel in the Army for the purposes of the Act is indubitably in general terms concerning the Petitioner as well as all Superintending Engineers (FS) equally placed. The decision conveyed thereby, therefore, occasioned consequences affecting all concerned. The conclusion of this Court though recorded in proceedings initiated by the Petitioner, having regard to the reasons recorded therein signified invalidation of the order impugned, thus predicating equivalence for all purposes. The decision conveyed thereby, therefore, occasioned consequences affecting all concerned. The conclusion of this Court though recorded in proceedings initiated by the Petitioner, having regard to the reasons recorded therein signified invalidation of the order impugned, thus predicating equivalence for all purposes. As a corollary, in absence of any appeal, it was incumbent on the Respondents to take necessary steps to implement the order of this Court in all conceivable and essential aspects. 21. As observed hereinabove, the Secretary, BRDB, had filed his affidavit in the writ proceeding in his official capacity. That the Board is the Cadre Control Authority of the Petitioner and for that matter the appointing authority for Group A and Group B posts in the GREF is borne out by the Border Road Regulations. Having regard to the pleadings available, it is not possible to hold that the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 1 in the writ proceeding has been in his individual capacity and that the Board had not sanctioned its approval therefore as contended by Respondent No. 2. Evidently as on date, the letter dated 12.05.2006 has not yet been cancelled or recalled by the Respondents. The equivalence in the ranks of SE(FS) and Colonel for all purposes has not been declared as yet. Though the Respondent No. 3 in his additional affidavit dated 03.10.2007 has claimed a revision of the organization tree post on the re-designation of SO-I (Planning) as Director (Planning) in terms of the letter dated 06.08.2007, the organization tree appended thereto does not tally with the one appended to the letter BRDB ID No. BRDB/10/982/2006/GE-I dated 27.09.2007 issued by the Director, Border Roads Development Board, GE-I. The Respondent No. 3 in his affidavit filed thereafter on 4.1.2008 however has contended that the aforementioned letter dated 27.09.2007 had not yet been received by him or by HQ CE(P) Sampark and has inferred the same to be an engineered document. The materials on record are inadequate to arrive at any definite finding in this regard. Be that as it may viewed from the perspective of the unequivocal determination of this Court, the sequence of events thereafter do not demonstrate an unqualified and unreserved demeanour of the Respondents to comply therewith. The materials on record are inadequate to arrive at any definite finding in this regard. Be that as it may viewed from the perspective of the unequivocal determination of this Court, the sequence of events thereafter do not demonstrate an unqualified and unreserved demeanour of the Respondents to comply therewith. The re-designation of the Petitioner posted as SO-I (Planning) as Director (Planning) per se in the opinion of this Court cannot be construed to be in total and spontaneous compliance of the judgment and order dated 13.02.2007. 22. The assertions of the of Respondents 2, 3 and 4 in essence not only seek to undermine the authority of Respondent No. 1 to act on behalf of the Board but also question the authenticity and credibility of the averments made in the affidavit affirmed by him on behalf of all Respondents 1, 2 and 4 in the writ proceeding. Though these asseverations in the affidavits in the contempt proceeding vis-a-vis the merits are of no decisive consequence, these only display a recalcitrant and resilient attitude of these Respondents to the exigency of implementation of the decision of this Court. 23. These Respondents though fully aware of the essence and purport of the decision of this Court have been exuded veiled reservations about the correctness and tenability of the deductions recorded therein. They as responsible officers of the Board, were expected to act in venerated adherence to the adjudication made more particularly in absence of any appeal therefrom. They not only had remained languid and lukewarm in the matter but also seem to have very reluctantly acted on the letter dated 06.08.2007. The posting of the Petitioner as SO-I after the decision of this Court acting on the order dated 12.05.2006 proclaims a cavalier defiance to the determination of this Court. Having regard to the office held by them no indigence of capacity of discernment can be assumed so as to be ignorant of the import of the mandate of this Court to mitigate their failings to be non-intentional or non-deliberate. The move to re-designate the Petitioner as Director (Planning) was initiated after the institution of the contempt proceeding. Having regard to the background of the litigation leading to the challenge to the order dated 12.05.2006, the above step ipso facto, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be accepted to be in wholesome compliance of the decision rendered on 13.02.2007. The move to re-designate the Petitioner as Director (Planning) was initiated after the institution of the contempt proceeding. Having regard to the background of the litigation leading to the challenge to the order dated 12.05.2006, the above step ipso facto, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be accepted to be in wholesome compliance of the decision rendered on 13.02.2007. The notice dated 03.05.2007 requiring the Petitioner to explain his conduct as enumerated therein though carries the whiff of a prospective punitive action, no dilation at this stage is considered expedient. The authorities concerned, however, as expected, would act with fairness and circumspection. The insertion in hand made by the learned Counsel for the Respondents 2 and 3 (appearing for Respondent No. 1) though strongly detested by this Court, having regard to the explanation furnished and apology offered by him, the issue is not pursued further. It is, however, expected that the learned Counsel as a responsible member of the profession would be vigilant and cautious in future and desist from such indulgences on the advises and instructions of his clients. That the Director General, Border Roads, is the competent authority to implement the judgment and order of this Court is admitted in the show cause notice dated 03.05.2007 (Annexure 15 to the contempt petition). The Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 4 have held the office of the Director, Border Roads Development Board at all relevant times, the latter having taken over the charge thereof from the Respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 01.10.2007. The Respondent No. 3 is the Chief Engineer, Project Sampark. GREF. Considering the office held by the Respondent No. 1 and his stand in the affidavit, the charge of wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court cannot be sustained against him. The imputation in this regard against Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. however, stands established. 24. The decision of this Court in Kali Bogo and Ors. (supra), is of no avail to them as the accompanying facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, demonstrate wilful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order dated 13.02.2007, which not only undermined the majesty and dignity of this Court, but also has caused impediment in the course of administration of justice. 25. (supra), is of no avail to them as the accompanying facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, demonstrate wilful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order dated 13.02.2007, which not only undermined the majesty and dignity of this Court, but also has caused impediment in the course of administration of justice. 25. No elaboration of the contextual facts and the rendering in Balram (supra) and Singh Noorali Babul Thanewala (supra), which dwelt on the concept of contempt of Court on a breach of undertaking given to it, is considered essential. The following quote from Holsbury's Law of England, 4th Edition, Para 75, however, looks apposite: An undertaking given to the Court by a person or Corporation in pending proceeding, on the failure of which the Court sanctions particular course of action or inaction, has the same force of an injunction made by a Court and a breach of undertaking is misconduct amounting to contempt. 26. The determinations made by the Court in the writ petition based on a survey of the pleadings of the Parties more particularly the affidavit on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 unreservedly have to be revered and implemented without failure. The Respondents 2, 3 and 4 in assuming a refractory and non-cooperative attitude have not only denigrated the authority of this Court but also have sought to trivialize the supremacy of the rule of law. These Respondents have failed to assign any valid and bonafide defence against their omissions and commissions and judged by the prevailing facts and circumstances are liable for contempt of this Court under the Act. Noticeably, no apology as such has been offered by the Respondent No. 2 and the conduct of Respondent No. 3 and 4 is wanting in remorse and contrition. The established impudence in the conduct and disposition of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 as elaborated hereinabove, thus calls for an exemplary penal sentence. This Court in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, is satisfied that the contempt is of a nature substantially interfering with the due course of justice. As members of a disciplined force, their recusant demeanour is both unacceptable, as well as reproachable. This Court is, therefore, of the view that a fine alone would not meet the ends of justice. It is, therefore, ordered that the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, Lt. As members of a disciplined force, their recusant demeanour is both unacceptable, as well as reproachable. This Court is, therefore, of the view that a fine alone would not meet the ends of justice. It is, therefore, ordered that the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, Lt. General K.S. Rao, PVSM, SC, SM Director General Border Roads, Seema Sadak, B. Bhawan, Ringh Road, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-110010, Brigadier v. Rajgopal, the Chief Engineer, Project Sampark (GREF), C/O. 56 APO and Lt. General Arun Kumar Nanda, Director General Border Roads, Seema Sadak Bhawan, Ringh Road, Delhi Cantt. respectively, for the contempt of this Court, be detained in civil prison for fifteen (15) days. Further, they would be required to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each, within a period of two (2) weeks herefrom. The petition therefore, is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. The Registry would take immediate steps to ensure implementation of this order. Petition allowed