Respondents are bound to comply with the orders of the court and any deliberate violation or disobedience of such orders may amount to contempt of court.

JUDGMENT

B.Krishna Mohan, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondent No.1, and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent.

2. This Contempt Case is filed for non implementation of the order in Writ Petition No.5730 of 2020 dated 12.03.2020.

3. The respondents herein are the respondents in the said writ petition and the operative portion of the order in the said writ petition is as follows:

'Hence, in view of the above judgment, there shall be a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner forthwith subject to the petitioner possessing other requisite qualifications.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. as a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed'.

Then the petitioner gave representation dated 04.05.2020 to the respondents seeking regularization of his services with effect from the date he completed five years of services. as there was no implementation of the order of this Court dated 12.03.2020 he filed the above said contempt case.

4. The 2nd respondent filed the counter stating that it was allowed at the admission stage on 12.03.2020 with a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner forthwith subject to the petitioner possessing other requisite qualifications. aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal in W.a.No.66 of 2021 and the same was dismissed at the admission stage on 31.03.2021 observing as follows:

'Since it is not disputed by him that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 27.04.2004, the writ petitioner would be entitled to regularization of his service, we find no good ground to interfere with the eventual direction of the learned single Judge for regularization of service of the writ petitioner of the learned single Judge for regularization of service of the writ petitioner.

The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed'.

He further stated that in pursuance of the above said orders of the Hon'ble High Court the proposal was sent to the Finance Department dated 16.04.2021 under intimation to the petitioner for concurrence to draft order vide e-file No.1393049 for strict implementation. For which the Finance Department raised certain query as follows:

'The Legislature Department is advised to send the proposal duly examining the requisite qualification in terms of G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 27.04.2004 for regularization of the petitioner as directed in W.P.No.5730 of 2020 and W.a.No.66 of 2021, otherwise, necessary action/orders may be initiated as per rules'.

5. In reply to the above said query, the 2nd respondent resubmitted the proposal on 09.09.2021. He also filed an additional affidavit stating that the file was sent to the Finance Department for concurrence of the proposal on 10.08.2020, 24.06.2021, 09.09.2021 and 24.09.2021 and the Finance Department finally on 01.10.2021 at about 4:40 PM advised to circulate the file for orders as per Business Rules along with remarks of the Law Department. He further stated that the file was already circulated to the Law Department on 27.05.2020 and there is no need now for remarks of the Law Department. He reiterated the decision for implementation of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.5730 of 2020 and W.a.No.66 of 2021 dated 21.12.2020 but for the concurrence of the Finance Department. He also sought permission of this Court to issue the regularization orders for the petitioner as Office Subordinate.

6. While so, the 1st respondent filed the counter affidavit stating that his Department is only an advisory Department on the proposals referred to it as per the Gazette Rules and he is only a proforma party and inclusion of his name in the Contempt Case is not tenable. On merits he further submitted that the 2nd respondent has referred the file to him for concurrence on the proposal for regularization of the petitioner as per the business rules and the same was returned along with remarks on 24.08.2021 requesting to e