The court emphasized the importance of respecting the authority and dignity of the superior judiciary and held that the title "Justice" is an integral part of the judges' identity and should not be misused or omitted.

( 1 ) THIS contempt application is arising out of non-compliance of the order of this Court passed on 19th June, 2002. Earlier by an order of the high Court the State Government issued an Office Order dated 22nd April, 1997, to facilitate the people attached to the Career Advancement Scheme under burdwan Zilla Parishad from 1st April, 1989 to 22nd August, 1996. A question arose why the same principle will not be applicable in respect of other districts. On 4th September, 1997 another Office Order was issued by the Principal secretary to follow the earlier Office Order dated 22nd April, 1997. An anomalous situation arose in reading paragraph XII of the Office Order. This Court clarified the same by holding that similar principle is to be adopted in respect of all the districts within the State with effect from 23rd August, 1996 in pursuance to the impugned order dated 4th September, 1997. The order would have been complied with at the earliest. But since the same has not been done, the petitioners made this contempt application wherein Rule was issued. The contemners having been present obtained exemption from personal appearance until and unless further order or orders are to be passed by this Court. Subsequently two letters were written by the Deputy Secretary to the government of West Bengal being dated 13th August, 2003 and 28th August, 2003 to the Executive Officer, Hooghly Zilla Parishad to follow the Office Order dated 4th September, 1997 which was not the import of the original order. The import of the original order is that the said office order will be followed as per the clarification of the Court. Therefore, the contempt was aggravated in that way. In further, with utter surprise I saw that in the first letter i. e. 13th August, 2003 titling word of the Judge of the High Court, i. e. "justice" was misplaced with an impression that such word can be placed anywhere or everywhere either before or after the name of a Judge. Even non-placement or replacement by any other word other than the word "justice" can be made as if the same is mere or bare nomenclature.

( 2 ) THEREFORE, two issues are involved hereunder. First one is in connection with the merit and second one is in connection with showing disrespect to the members of the superior judiciary i. e. the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

( 3 ) UPON hearing the parties I am of the view that neither there was any question of misunderstanding nor availability of two possible views under the order. Therefore, no such defence can be available to the contemners. The reference in the Departmental Memorandum/office Order dated 13th august, 2003 and 28th August, 2003 ought to have been backed by the reference of the Departmental Memorandum/office Order dated 22nd April, 1997 which was the basis of the order passed by this Court. By not incorporating the same contemners unnecessarily kept the litigation undecided for the future. The jurisdiction of the Court of Contempt is not only restricted with a power to punish one but also have power to get the order executed in the proper manner. In fact, the Departmental memorandum/office Order/s was/were issued during the pendency of the application under threat of contempt. Therefore, the clarification of the order is effectively made only when the contempt proceeding was initiated. Therefore, the contempt is established. However, since unconditional apology is prayed, the same is accepted and in accepting the same I hold and say that the import of the Departmental Memorandum/office Order is to be construed as an outcome of the original Departmental Memorandum/office order dated 22nd April, 1997 in addition to Departmental Memorandum/ office Order dated 4th September, 1997 as regards paragraph XII of the earlier order to avoid possibility of tactical or clever ploy or any arbitrary action on the part of the Governmental authorities, if any, in future.

( 4 ) IN the letter of compliance dated 13th August, 2003 the