SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Pat) 774

PATNA HIGH COURT
R.S.Garg, J.
Indu Prakash
Versus
State Of Bihar
M.J.C. No. 2459 of 2002 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 2, 2004

Government officers have a duty to promptly comply with court orders and serve the public, and non-compliance may lead to personal consequences for the responsible officers.

Headnote:

Public Servants - Compliance with Court Orders - Observations on the Indifference and Lethargy of Government Officers

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were reinstated to their posts with consequential benefits, but faced delays and non-compliance from government officers in receiving their salary and joining formalities.

Finding of the Court:

The Court criticized the indifference and lethargy of government officers in complying with court orders, emphasizing the need for timely and effective action by public servants.

Issues: Non-compliance with court orders, delay in redressing grievances, and the responsibility of government officers to adhere to court directives.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment highlighted the duty of government officers to promptly comply with court orders and serve the public, emphasizing that non-compliance could lead to personal consequences for the responsible officers.

Final Decision: The Court closed the proceedings and directed the Chief Secretary to circulate the order to all departments to avoid similar proceedings in the future.

Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The respondent Director, Secondary Education and the District Education Officer, Saran are present in person. They have filed their counter. It is submitted in the counter affidavit of respondent no. 3 that all the amount due to the petitioner have been paid and in receipt of the same, she has already issued a letter in favour of the respondents.

3. Though after the letter is issued to the petitioner, nothing further is required to be done in the matter, but I think I must make certain observations in this case.

4. CWJC No. 8110 of 1996 and CWJC No. 8903 of 1996, filed by Smt. Indu Prakash, the present applicant and Smt. Pratibha Singh, were allowed by the High Court on 23.6.2000. This Court observed that the order dated 10.8.1996 cannot be sustained and it was accordingly quashed. The Court further directed that the petitioners stand reinstated to their posts with effect from 10.8.1996 and they would be allowed all consequential benefits including arrears of salary. When the High Court said that the petitioners stood reinstated then the simple words carried simple meaning that nothing further was required to be done and petitioner was required to be allotted some work.

5. On 6.7.2000 the petitioner made an application of joining to the Headmistress, Shanti Raman Project High School, Sarhwara, District Saran (Annexure 3) but unfortunately, the said Headmistress without appreciating the fact and impact of the order passed by this Court, wrote to the Director, Secondary Education that proper instructions be issued to her. Thereafter, as usual, the officers in the Directorate were sleeping and the District Education Officer was not rising to the occasion. It took almost one year and four months to the respondents to come out of their slumber when respondent no. 3 issued an order that the petitioners joining would be from the date of submitting her application. Despite that, the petitioner was not paid her salary. The present application came to be filed on 31.10.2002 but unfortunately, the Director of Education, took the filing of the application to be an ordinary matter and did nothing in the matter.

6. No counter affidavit was filed upto 7.7.2004, therefore, this Court directed that respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall remain in attendance with their counter affidavit and show cause why they be not awarded jail sentence for non-compliance of the order dated 23.6.2000 passed in the abovereferred CWJC. This notice worked as an eye opener and compelled the respondents, who are present in this Court, to come out of their hibernation and pass orders. True it is that as of today, petitioners grievances have been redressed but I must observe that the grievances have been redressed on 30.7.2004. Why the officers of the State Government are so indifferent and lethargic; why cannot they rise to the occasion; why cannot they understand the orders of the High Court, why do they take the High Court for a ride and make an attempt to fiddle with the authority of the High Court? Can these officers of the State Government not understand the orders of the High Court and observe the order right in time to avoid a situation of filing a contempt petition and also to avoid their personal appearance in Court. This Court is not interested in seeing faces of these officers but is interested in observing the orders passed by this Court are being complied with. If a simple threatwhy they should not be sent to jailcan work as magic, then I think this Court should always so write even in its final order disposing of writ applications that if the orders are not complied with, then the particular officer answerable to the orders of the Court shall be taken to task and be sent to jail. The Government officers are public servants. They are not public bosses. They are not to be trained by the High Court or tamed by the High Court. They have to work because they are paid for it. The officers occupying high chairs mus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top