ORDER : (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) 1. On the question as to whether the Rule of Contempt shall be issued against the Respondents / Contemnors, an application for show-cause has been filed by the proposed Contemnors / Respondents, stating, inter alia, that the Respondent sought opinion from the Law department as to his future course of action in view of the judgement passed by this Court which has not admittedly been complied with as yet. 2. The learned Advocate for the Respondents / Contemnors refers to Annexure-B to the said show-cause petition being a submission made by the respondents that after obtaining the opinion of law department advised for filing LPA against the order dated 04.10.2024 passed in CWJC No. 10549 of 2024, letter has been written by the Under Secretary to the Additional Chief Secretary / Chief Secretary / Secretary of all the Government Departments in the State of Bihar that in respect of appeals filed against the judgement passed in the writ petition by a Single Judge, the Government should take steps on the basis of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3932 of 1992, Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. & Anr. v. Sachidanand Dass & Anr., reported in 1995 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 465. Briefly stated, the aforesaid judgement states: - “Wherever the order whose disobedience is complained about is appealed against and stay of its operation is pending before the Court, it will be appropriate to take up for consideration the prayer for stay either earlier or at least simultaneously with the complaint for contempt. To keep the prayer for stay stand-by and to insist upon proceeding with the complaint for contempt might in many conceivable cases, as here, cause serious prejudice.” 3. It is submitted on behalf of the Respondents that against the judgement passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10549 of 2024 on 04th of October, 2024, the Respondents have preferred an appeal. The said appeal is pending before the Division Bench and till the disposal of the application for stay connected in the appeal, this Court should lay off its hands in passing any order or direction in the nature of contempt against the Respondents. 4. In support of his contention, he also refers to a recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in L.P.A. No. 595 of 2024. 5. 4. In support of his contention, he also refers to a recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in L.P.A. No. 595 of 2024. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further states that the principle laid down in Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable under the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. He further refers to a subsequent judgement passed in the case of H. Phunindre Singh (Dr) & Ors. v. K.K. Sethi & Anr., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 640 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken absolutely and contrary view. Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid report is quoted below for the purpose of this case. “2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In our view, in the facts of the case, particularly when the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not stayed by the Division Bench, the contempt petition should have been disposed of on merits instead of adjourning the same till disposal of the appeal, so that question of deliberate violation of the subsisting order of the Court is considered and enforceability of the Court's order is not permitted to be diluted. In the facts of the case, we feel that the contempt petition should be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of the communication of this order and we order accordingly. It is further directed that before disposal of the contempt petition, the pending appeal should not be taken up for hearing. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.” 7. Thus, paragraph 2 directs the Court that before disposal of the Contempt Petition, the pending appeal should not be taken up for hearing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court went to the extent that the Contempt Application would have to be disposed of first. Thereafter, the appeal filed against the writ petition may be considered. 8. It is also submitted by the counsel, showing a State Government’s Circular, bearing No. 1785, dated 6th of August, 2005, directing all the Departments under the Government to comply with the order / direction / directions issued by a Writ Court even where an appeal is pending or contemplated with the rider that the final decision in such respect shall be governed by the decision in appeal. Thus, pendency of appeal does not take away the right of the Writ Court from giving effect to its order. If such right is taken away in full, the Court of first instance will be made handicapped and powerless and the parties will have to depend upon the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to get the fruit of the result passed by the Writ Court. 9. On the same point, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners refers to a Three Judges Bench Decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 273 . Paragraph 29 of the said judgement is found to be important and quoted below: - “29. Lethargy, ignorance, official delays and absence of motivation can hardly be offered as any defence in an action for contempt. Inordinate delay in complying with the orders of the courts has also received judicial criticism. It is inappropriate for the parties concerned to keep the execution of the court's orders in abeyance for an inordinate period. Inaction or even dormant behavior by the officers in the highest echelons in the hierarchy of the Government in complying with the directions/orders of this Court certainly amounts to disobedience. Inordinate delay of years in complying with the orders of the court or in complying with the directed stipulations within the prescribed time, has been viewed by this Court seriously and held to be the contempt of court, as it undermines the dignity of the court. Reference in this regard can be made to Maniyeri Madhavan v. Inspector of Police [1993 Supp (2) SCC 501 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 696 : AIR 1993 SC 356 ] and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh [ (2002) 4 SCC 21 ] . Even a lackadaisical attitude, which itself may not be deliberate or wilful, have not been held to be a sufficient ground of defence in a contempt proceeding. Obviously, the purpose is to ensure compliance with the orders of the court at the earliest and within stipulated period.” 10. Thus, the purpose for contempt proceeding is to ensure compliance with the order of the Court at the earliest and within the stipulated period of time. 11. Obviously, the purpose is to ensure compliance with the orders of the court at the earliest and within stipulated period.” 10. Thus, the purpose for contempt proceeding is to ensure compliance with the order of the Court at the earliest and within the stipulated period of time. 11. This Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10549 of 2024, directed to accept the joining of the petitioner to its original place of posting. The said exercise had not been done by the State Government. 12. It appears that the Respondents have filed an appeal after the application for contempt has been filed by the petitioners. 13. This Court is also aware of the order passed in L.P.A. No. 595 of 2024. The said order was passed on the basis of the decision in Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. (supra). However, the Division Bench did not consider the subsequent judgement of Dr. H. Phunindre Singh and Maninderjit Singh Bitta (supra). 14. This Court is not unmindful to note that the Court is under obligation to obey, observe and follow the decision of the Division Bench. But at the same time, if there is any confrontation between the Division Bench’s order and the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is most respectfully submitted, shall prevail. In Dr. H. Phunindre Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly directed that contempt petition shall be disposed of first and thereafter the Court of Appeal should take up the hearing, meaning thereby, the writ petitioners must enjoy the fruits of the order which is conclusive determination of the dispute between the parties relating to Constitutional Rights and obligations as well as legal rights. 15. Considering such aspects of the matter, this Court directs the Respondents to comply with the order passed by this Court within a period of two weeks after winter vacation positively, failing which rule shall be issued against the Respondents. 16. Re-list this matter on 24th of January, 2025.