JUDGMENT :

Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.

1. The present action is one seeking enforcement of directions contained in an order passed on December 24, 2010 in WP No. 16493 (W) of 2004, by way of a Contempt Petition.

2. The facts of the case are very simple. The petitioner had instituted a Writ Petition being WP No. 16493(W) of 2004 before this Hon’ble Court seeking approval of his service as a clerk of Mazharul Ulum High Madrasah situated in the district of Malda. The petitioner was a graduate at the time of his appointment in December 1996, which he had joined on January 15, 1997. In the course of his employment, he had obtained a Master’s Degree in Political Science and has been working in the capacity of a clerk for a considerable period of time, even though his appointment had not been regularised.

3. It is for the regularisation of his service that he had approached this Hon’ble Court. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, four other persons were added along with the petitioner herein as petitioners in the Writ Petition.

4. The order of 24th December 2010 records that since all petitioners had been serving the institution in question for a considerable period of time in their respective posts as teaching and non-teaching staff, the District Inspector of School, the alleged contemnor herein, should appoint all petitioners as permanent staff simply by virtue of their “long length of service”. The District Inspector of School was directed to approve the appointment of all the petitioners in their respective posts within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the said order. The petitioners upon such approval would be entitled to receive salary and other benefits without any interruption.

5. It appears from the order that no one had appeared on behalf of the State or the District Inspector of School, the respondent No. 3 in the Writ Petition.

6. It is the non-compliance of these directions as aforestated, contained in the order of 24th December 2010, that the present Contempt Petition was filed sometime in December 2017.

7. The Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in spite of such specific direction, the concerned District Inspector of School, the present incumbent, having been impleaded as the contemnor on 11th March 2025, did not take any steps to comply with the directions as contained in the order. Hence, there is a clear act of wilful, deliberate, and contumacious violation of the directions contained in the order of 24th December 2010. The petitioner has also urged that by a notice on 10th January 2011 as well as of 14th June 2017, the contemnor had been intimated of the order of 24th December 2010 and that the contemnor was required to act on the basis of such notice.

8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent/alleged contemnor has urged that though the order was made on 24th December 2010, such intimation was never made at all to the concerned respondent/contemnor. Thus, the present action is clearly barred by the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 as contained in Section 20. It has also been argued by the counsel for the respondent that the notices of 10th January 2011 and 14th January 2017 were never served on the respondent/contemnor. He also pointed out that both aforestated notices had no postal receipts or acknowledgement card. Thus, it cannot be conclusively held that the petitioner had indeed effected service of the order on the alleged contemnor by these two notices.

9. The petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2013 (11) SCC 618 to urge that long periods of delay, 10 years in the said case, were condoned as it was construed that in civil execution, the period of limitation would have been 12 years. However, in the said case, the initiation had been within the time prescribed under the Act and the time consumed was due to the pendency of the matter before various forums as well as before the Courts. There is no such leverage in the present matter.