Importance of complying with court orders and consequences of flouting them.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The petitioner, a Class IV employee, took up cudgels in 1999 against the might of the State for regularisation of his services as a Black Smith in the Central Jail, Buxar, where he was working since 1986.

3. The State considered it prudent to oppose the claim with all its mite and resources.

4. Placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court it was held that the appointment of the petitioner on daily wages ex facie was not illegal. He was inducted by the opposite party no. 2 who was competent to do so. The respondents were therefore directed by order dated 27.11.2004 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation within three months from the date of the order.

5. The order was not questioned by the opposite parties and thus attained finality.

6. Despite passage of more than reasonable time, compliance not forthcoming, the petitioner instituted the present application on 15.7.2005. The opposite party no. 2 then woke up from stupor and passed an order on 20.8.2005 relying on a government instruction that the post being a single post in accordance with the reservation roster it now fell in the reserved category and therefore the petitioner could not be regularised. A departmental instruction was sought to be urged to justify non-compliance of the order of this Court. It additionally stated that the petitioner had a good case for regularisation by relaxation of age by the Committee existing for the purpose. Till then he was reinstated on daily wages,

7. The Apex Court in AIR 1996 SC 302 (T. R. Dhananjaya vs. J.Vasudevan) was considering the defence of departmental rules in an action for contempt in non compliance of Court orders. Their Lordships at the relevant extract of paragraph 11 held as follows

"12......When the claim inter se had been adjudicated and the claim of the petitioner had become final and that of Dasegowda was negatived, it is no longer open to the government to go behind the orders and truncate the effect of the orders passed by this Court by hovering over the rules to get round the result, to legitimise legal alibi to circumvent orders by this Court......."

8. The apparent conflict with the law in defiance of the implementation of the order of this Court, led the opposite party to seek adjournment for passing fresh orders. Magnanimity persuaded this Court to accede the request.

9. Thereafter followed an order dated 28.9.2006 of the opposite party no. 2 that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in (2006) 4 SCC 1[:2006(2) PLJR (SC)363] (Secy., State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi) that regularisation of the petitioner was not possible and that his case was being recommended for selection process to the Staff Selection Commission after relaxation on age.

10. The fact that the case of the petitioner was covered under the one time exercise, excepted in paragraph 53* of the aforesaid judgment, promoted the opposite party to seek further adjournment for compliance of the order of the Court.

11. The present order dated 5.7.2007, then followed regularising the services of the petitioner. Paragraph 7 of the order states that it was being passed on basis of the fate accompli confronting the opposite party no. 2 as opined by the Advocate General.

12. Notwithstanding that the Supreme Court as far back as AIR 1957 SC 742 (Messrs Associated Tubewells Ltd. vs. R.B. Gujarmal Modi) may have deprecated recital of what may have transpired during hearing, the opposite party no. 2 nonchalantly and brazenly resorted thereto almost as if it was very condescendingly and reluctantly he was favouring the Court by compliance, not in obedience to the directions of the Court, but in graciousness to what was advised by the Advocate General. To the opposite party no. 2, the legal advice that he may receive takes precedence over the command of the Court. It would only be appropriate to quote para 5 and 6 of the judgmen