JUDGMENT : P.B. Bajanthri, J. CM No. 12009-CWP of 2016 2. Instant application has been filed on behalf of applicant/respondent No.2 with a prayer to recall the order dated 02.09.2016 in so far as observations about conduct of the applicant/Managing Director, LIC of India in CWP No. 20675 of 2013 and award of payment of cost from her pocket Pursuant to the order dated 02.09.2016, Managing Director, LIC of India namely, Mrs. Usha Sangwan is present in the Court. 3. Learned senior counsel submitted that in para No. 3 of the application the Managing Director has tendered her unconditional apology for non-appearance on 02.09.2016. For deletion of observations of conduct and payment of cost from her pocket is concerned, various factual aspects have been narrated in the application. It was submitted that order dated 22.07.2016 has not been brought to the notice of the Managing Director till 31.08.2016. It is to be noted that she is arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the main petition so she is equally responsible to comply with the order dated 22.07.2016. If the order dated 22.07.2016 has not been not communicated to respondent No. 2 by counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 nor Divisional office of the LIC of India, Chandigarh would not absolve the order dated 22.07.2016, she cannot say that order dated 22.07.2016 has not been communicated to her till 31.08.2016. Even assuming that only on 31.8.2016, order dated 22.07.2016 came to her knowledge then also she had sufficient time between 31.08.2016 to 02.09.2016 for making necessary application for recalling order dated 22.7.2016 or seeking exemption of personal appearance. Instead of 2nd respondent-Managing Director filing application for recalling order dated 22.07.2016, one Sh. V.K. Arora, Manager (Legal) LIC of India, Divisional Office, Chandigarh has filed application as well as affidavit for recalling order dated 22.7.2016 on two occasions namely,27.08.2016 and 02.09.2016. When the order dated 22.07.2016 was very specific that respondent No. 2-Managing director LIC of India Mumbai is directed to be present before this Court in the next date of hearing ( 02.09.2016), it was bounden duty of the Managing Director to file application as well as affidavit for recalling order dated 22.07.2016 or to seek exemption from personal appearance. On 02.09.2016, the Managing Director was not present. On 02.09.2016, the Managing Director was not present. On the other hand affidavit was filed for exemption from personal appearance of the Managing Director on 02.09.2016 when the personal appearance was ordered for 02.09.2016. Exemption application can be entertained prior to the date of personal appearance. It cannot be entertained on 02.09.2016, the date on which she was supposed to be present pursuant to the order dated 22.7.2016. 4. In view of facts and circumstances, there are serious lapses on the part of the Divisional Office LIC of India in filing affidavit and application on behalf of respondent No.2 when personal appearance of 2nd respondent was ordered. The 2nd respondent was aware of the order dated 22.07.2016 on 31.08.2016. She should not have allowed Sh. V.K. Arora to file application and affidavit on 02.09.2016, when the order dated 22.07.2016 directed her to appear on 02.09.2016. Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 during the period from 22.07.2016 till 02.09.2016. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order dated 02.09.2016 ordering that Managing Director is liable to pay cost of Rs. 50,000/-, out of which Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to Legal Service Authority, Chandigarh and remaining Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner from her pocket and not from the LIC of India before the fixed date. The reasons for directing the Managing Director to pay cost from her pocket is that tax payers money shall not be misused in respect of where personal liability in a matter is involved. In the present case there is serious lapse on the part of the Managing Director, therefore, the reasons stated in the application that she was otherwise busy in administrative matters therefore she could not attend the Court on 02.09.2016 cannot be accepted. In para 12 of the application it is stated that cost awarded by this Court has been complied on 14.09.2016. Hence, there is no merit in the application and it is hereby rejected. CWP No. 20675 of 2013 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file replication. 6. Adjourned to 24.10.2016. 7. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are also directed to produce the original file relating to promotion of juniors and also why the name of the petitioner has been rejected.