JUDGMENT B.P. DAS, J. — The petitioner, who is working as a Laborato¬ry Attendant in the Department of Chemistry in J.N. College, Kuanpal in the district of Cuttack, has filed this contempt application on the allegation that though this Court in its judgment dated 09.09.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.10947 of 2008 directed compliance of the judgment passed by the State Education Tribunal on 3.7.2006 in G.I.A. Case No.87/2004, the same has not been complied with by the State Authorities, for which he has been deprived of getting his grant-in-aid dues, as has been directed by the Tribunal. The petitioner has stated that he is in need of a quite substantial amount of money for his medical treatment, as he is suffering from Hypo-Cellular and has filed the Bone-Marrow Aspiration Report in support of his illness. As the State Authorities did not comply with the order of the State Education Tribunal, the petitioner was forced to file the writ application, W.P.(C) No.10947/2008 on the ground that taking advantage of the flaw in the Orissa Education Act where there is no provision for execution of the order the Tribunal, the O.Ps. were not implementing the order passed by the Tribunal, even though the petitioner succeeded in the Tribunal in a case filed in the year 2004 and disposed of in the year 2006. In the writ application, a prayer was made to direct the O.P.-contemnors to implement the order of the Tribunal. 2. In W.P.(C) No.10947/2008 on 22.8.2008 this Court passed the following orders :- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Let a copy of the writ application be served on the learned counsel for the State. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the State Education Tribunal in G.I.A. No.87 of 2004 has not been complied with till date. He further submits that the petitioner is suffering from Hypo Cellular, as is evident from Bone-Marrow Aspiration Report (Annexure-2) and requires money for his treatment. Let Opp.Party Nos.1 and 2, Commissioner-cum-Secretary in Higher Education Department, Orissa and Director, Higher Educa¬tion, Orissa file affidavit by 30.8.2008 indicating therein the date on which the order of the State Education Tribunal passed in G.I.A. No.87 of 2004 was brought to their notice and action taken thereon. Place this matter on 5.9.2008...........” But no affidavit was filed in pursuance of the aforesaid direction. Place this matter on 5.9.2008...........” But no affidavit was filed in pursuance of the aforesaid direction. Thereafter the matter was listed on 5.9.2008, on which date on the request of the learned Additional Government Advo¬cate, the matter was again directed to be placed on 9.9.2008. On 9.9.2008 as no affidavit was filed in compliance of the order dated 22.8.2008, considering the plight of the petitioner, this Court passed the following order on 9.9.2008 in W.P.(C) No.10947/2008 :- “........The grievance of the petitioner in this writ appli¬cation is against the state and its Officer in not implementing the judgment dated 3.7.2006 passed by the State Education Tribu¬nal in GIA Case No.87 of 2004 because of which the petitioner has been deprived of getting the grant-in-aid dues. It is stated that since the petitioner is suffering from Hypo-Cellular in support of which illness he has filed the Bone-Marrow Aspiration Report (Annexure-2) issued by Dr. R.K. Jena and is undergoing said treatment, he requires substantial money. On 22.8.2008, we adjourned the matter to 5.9.2008 and di¬rected opposite parties 1 and 2 to file affidavit by 30.8.2008 indicating the date on which the order of the State Education Tribunal passed in GIA Case No.87 of 2004 was brought to their notice and the action taken thereon. On 5.9.2008 on the prayer of Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the State, time was granted till 9.9.2008. To-day Mr. Acharya submits that despite his intimation, no instruction is received from the opposite parties. In view of the above, we dispose of the writ application with the direction to the opposite parties to comply with the judgment of the State Education Tribunal and compute and pay the dues to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of commu¬nication of this order.” The aforesaid order would show that the O.Ps. did not give any instruction to the State Counsel to be placed before this Court. As the order dated 9.9.2008 was not complied with within the time stipulated therein, the petitioner has filed this con¬tempt application on the allegation of non-compliance of the Court’s order by the contemnors. 3. When this matter came up on 19.12.2008, this Court while issuing notice to the O.Ps. by special messenger passed the following orders :- “Heard. Issue notice to the O.Ps. 3. When this matter came up on 19.12.2008, this Court while issuing notice to the O.Ps. by special messenger passed the following orders :- “Heard. Issue notice to the O.Ps. by special messenger to show cause as to why appropriate action under the contempt of Court’s Act shall not be taken against them for non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 9.9.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.10947/2008. The cost of special messenger shall be assessed and deposit made by 22.12.2008. Put of this matter on 9th January, 2009. Show cause affida¬vit be filed in the meantime.” Notice was received by both the contemnors on 27.12.2008, as it reveals from the record and the service reports. On 9.1.2009, when the matter was again listed, it was found that neither any show cause reply was filed by the contemnors nor did they file any application for extension of time to file show cause reply, for which we passed the following orders :- “Notice has gone in this case by Special Messenger, which has been duly received by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education, Orissa. No show cause is forthcoming. We hold that the opp.Parties-contemnors have no cause to show. Place this matter on 27th January, 2009 for hearing on the question of punishment. It is open to the opp.parties-contemnors to avail the oppor¬tunity of personal hearing being remain present in Court.” Thereafter, the matter was listed on 27.1.2009, on which date the contemnors failed to appear. But the learned Advocate General along with Mr. Sisir Das, learned Additional Government Advocate, was heard and this Court passed the following orders :- “Heard learned Advocate General along with Mr. Sisir Das, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the question of con¬tempt. In this case on 19.12.2008 notice was issued to the O.P.-contemnors by special messenger to show cause as to why contempt proceeding shall not been initiated against them for non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 9.9.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.10947/2008. Thereafter the matter was listed on 9.1.2009, on which date neither any show cause reply was filed by the contemnors nor any application was filed by them for exten¬sion of time to file the said reply, for which we held that the contemnors had no cause to show. Thereafter the matter was listed on 9.1.2009, on which date neither any show cause reply was filed by the contemnors nor any application was filed by them for exten¬sion of time to file the said reply, for which we held that the contemnors had no cause to show. Then the matter was directed to be listed today for hearing on the question of punishment and it was kept open to the contemnors to avail the opportunity of personal hearing being remain present in Court. Today the contemnors are absent. Learned Advocate General and the learned Additional Government Advocate tried to convince this Court regarding the merit in the writ petition, wherein hearing has been concluded and final order has been passed and non-compliance of which has given rise to this proceeding. Therefore, there is no scope for hearing in the writ petition, order of which has become final. Put up this matter at 3 p.m. on 30th January, 2009 for delivery of judgment. Contemnor No.1-Sri Madhu Sudan Padhi, Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, and contem¬nor No.2-Sri Suman Mohapatra, Director of Higher Education are directed to remain present in person in this Court on the afore¬said date and time......” 4. In these backgrounds, the stage is now set for awarding punishment under the Contempt of Court’s Act. Since the contem¬nors despite opportunity granted preferred not to file any show cause reply and not to appear in person after due service of notice and till date the order of this Court has not been com¬plied with, the irresistible conclusion is that the said non-compliance is deliberate and intentional. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the meantime the State filed F.A.O. No.206/2007 against the order of the Tribunal dated 3.7.2006 after the writ petition was dis¬posed of directing to comply with the order of the Tribunal. The said Appeal was also dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court by order dated 22.1.2009, which is as follows :- “Misc. Case No.291 of 2007 This is an application for condonation of delay of 259 days in filing the appeal. On a perusal of the application it is seen that the appel¬lant has taken the ground that the G.I.A. Case No.87 of 2004 was disposed of by the State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar by its judgment dated 3.7.2006, which was received in the Higher Education Department on 27.12.2006. On a perusal of the application it is seen that the appel¬lant has taken the ground that the G.I.A. Case No.87 of 2004 was disposed of by the State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar by its judgment dated 3.7.2006, which was received in the Higher Education Department on 27.12.2006. In the said judgment of the Education Tribunal, the appellants were directed to approve the appointment of the respondent No.1 with effect from 24.5.93 and to release grant-in-aid @ 1/3rd with effect from 17.10.98, 2/3rd from 24.5.2000 and full salary cost from 24.5.2002, within the period of three months. The appellant has filed the appeal on 18.5.2007. No grounds have been taken to explain the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, except the following : “That, the State Government being an impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with note making, file pushing etc. some sort of latitude to Government is permissible as far as condonation of delay in preferring appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.” Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has drawn the attention of this Court to the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 9.9.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.10947 of 2008, wherein a direction has been issued to the appellants to comply with the impugned judgment of the State Education Tribunal and to compute and pay the dues to the respondent No.1 within three days. In view of the fact that no reasons has been assigned to explain or justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Misc. Case is accordingly dismissed. Sd./-S.C. Parija, J. F.A.O. No.206 of 2007 This appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation. Sd./S.C. Parija, J.” 6. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the apex Court in State of Bihar v. Subhas Singh ( AIR 1997 SC 1390 ), wherein it is held that it is the duty of public officers to carry out the orders of the Court expeditiously. If, however, they are unable to do so, it is their duty to seek further time for compliance after explaining the reasons for non-compliance within the time specified. So, delay in carrying out an order of a Court after notice and without adequate explanation for laches would by itself constitute serious contempt. If, however, they are unable to do so, it is their duty to seek further time for compliance after explaining the reasons for non-compliance within the time specified. So, delay in carrying out an order of a Court after notice and without adequate explanation for laches would by itself constitute serious contempt. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Chandravir Singh v. M.V. Mathru, 1990 ALJ 31, while considering a contempt petition arising out of non-compliance of an interim order staying a termination order came to the conclusion that such an order of the Court could not be taken to be superfluous, meaningless or redundant. Likewise, the Madras High Court in the case of K. Iqbal Ahmed v. Thiru Santha¬nam, 1999 (I) MLJ 767 , took a strict view what where non-compliance of the direction of the Court to deposit a particular amount towards back wages was delayed by nearly two months after the date specified in the order, the Court rejected the excuse of the contemnor that he was unable to take any follow-up action because of huge volume of work. It was also pointed out that if any difficulty was experienced by the contemnor in complying with the time bound direction, then he should have approached the Court for extension or modification of the order. 7. The conduct of the present contemnors is worse than the conduct of the contemnors of the case cited above. Right from the beginning, the Officers due did not respond to the Court’s order, neither did they file petition for extension of time to file their show cause reply nor did they give any instruction to the State Counsel even though they were represented by him much less complying with the Court’s order. At this point we may refer to the decision of the apex Court in Aligarh Municipal Board and others v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and others, ( AIR 1970 SC 1767 ), relevant portion of paragraph-5 of which reads as follows : “5. ........Contempt proceeding against a person who has failed to comply with the Court’s order serves a dual purpose : (1) vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemp¬tuous conduct and (2) coercion to compel the contemnor to do what the law requires of him. The sentence imposed should effectuate both these purposes. ........Contempt proceeding against a person who has failed to comply with the Court’s order serves a dual purpose : (1) vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemp¬tuous conduct and (2) coercion to compel the contemnor to do what the law requires of him. The sentence imposed should effectuate both these purposes. It must be clearly understood in this con¬nection that to employ a subterfuge to avoid compliance of a Court’s order about which there could be no reasonable doubt may in certain circumstances aggravate the contempt ........” In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no extenuating circumstance to show leniency in imposing sentence. 8. It is worthwhile to remind the contemnors the words of the apex Court in Re : Sanjiv Datta (1995) 3 SCC 619 , which are extracted hereunder :- “xxx xxx xxx The Constitution entrusts the task of interpreting and administering the law to the Judiciary whose view on the subject is made legally final and binding on all till it is changed by a higher Court or by a permissible legislative measure. Those living and functioning under the Constitution have to accept and submit to this obligation of respecting the consti¬tutional authority of the Courts. Under a constitutional govern¬ment, such final authority has to vest in some institution. Otherwise, there will be chaos. The Courts’s verdict has to be respected not necessarily by the authority of its reason but always by reason of its authority. Any conduct designed to or suggestive of challenging this crucial balance of power devised by the Constitution is an attempt to subvert the rule of law and an invitation to anarchy.” In Baleswar Debata v. Priya Nath Mohanty, 1992 Cri LJ 495 referring to the recent trend of law breakers, the Court observed that even if the public officers in the highest echelons have been riding high on the quality of mercy very often displayed by the Courts in the past. Generosity was understood as weakness. Justice Hansaria delivering the said judgment regretfully noted the trend thus :- “This take us to the question regarding the sentence to be awarded to the two contemnors. Before we express our view on this aspect of the matter, we would like to state that this Court has noted with regret the growing tendency of wilful violation of this Court’s orders. Before we express our view on this aspect of the matter, we would like to state that this Court has noted with regret the growing tendency of wilful violation of this Court’s orders. As early as March, 1990, this Court had described this tendency in Original Criminal Misc. Case No.16/90 as a cancerous growth in the system of administration of justice prevalent in the country and had desired to put an immediate stop to the tendency. This is what was observed in this connection in that case :- ‘It has been a sad experience of this Court that orders passed by it are not strictly obeyed and not complied with at all times. A spate of contempt petitions would bear this statement. If an order obtained even from this Court is not complied with, there is no doubt that people at large would lose faith in the entire system of administration of justice and the same would cause a great dent to the rule of law which this Court has to upheld at any cost. People approach the Courts when they are in distress, and, if after spending time, money and energy, the orders obtained are flouted or not complied with, a serious view of the same has to be taken. According to us, it is high time that the tendency, be of officials or non-officials, in not carrying out orders of the Courts is put to a stop before it is too late to be cured. The tendency to violate Courts’ orders is almost like a cancer in the system of administration of justice and this has to be stopped before it spreads and eats away the whole system.’ A lenient view about sentence was, however, then taken and the contemnor was let off with imposition of fine only. Subsequently finding that imposition of fine was not having the desired result, in some other cases token punishment of imprison¬ment of one day was awarded, this too has made no difference. It is, therefore, felt that time has come to award really deterrent and exemplary sentence to keep in tact the majesty of law and the fabric of administration of justice.” 9. In the aforesaid background, we have no hesitation to hold that there is deliberate non-compliance of the order of this Court by the contemnors, for which we find, the contemnors are guilty of committing civil contempt. In the aforesaid background, we have no hesitation to hold that there is deliberate non-compliance of the order of this Court by the contemnors, for which we find, the contemnors are guilty of committing civil contempt. Accordingly, we hold them guilty under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, for which we are inclined to take a stricter view and impose a fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand) on each of the contemnors and direct them to deposit the same before this Court within seven days from today, failing which each of them shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. At the same time, we caution the contemnors to be more alert to the judicial orders in future. Adding to this, we direct the State Government to comply with the order of this Court dated 9.9.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.10947/2008 within a period of seven days from today. R.N. BISWAL, J. I agree. Ordered accordingly.