Wilful disobedience of a court order, as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, can be established even without proof of a direct intention to disobey the order. It is sufficient to show that the disobedience was not casual, accidental, or unintentional.

1. - A low paid employee like the petitioner, who had earlier filed a writ petition and was successful in getting his termination from service declared as illegal and void and also in getting a declaration about his entitlement t& get salary in the regular pay scale of Class-IV employee by being fixed at the minimum of the pay scale, has filed this contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the court's order.

2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4614/90 was filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the termination of his service by order dated 3.9.90 be declared illegal and be set aside and the petitioner be directed to be reinstated in service with all back wages. He also made a prayer that the respondents should be directed to pay him salary in the regular pay scale. The State of Rajasthan, Director, Social Welfare Department, District Social Welfare Officer, Alwar and the Assistant Superintendent (Hostel) Social Welfare Department, Kathumer, district Alwar, were parties to the writ petition. A joint reply was filed by the respondents to contest the writ petition. After hearing the parties, the Court allowed the writ petition vide its order dated 12.4.91. The operative portion of the order of the High Court reads as under:

"In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 3.3.1990 of the termination of the service of the petitioner is illegal and viod. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in the service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner shall be paid salary in the regular pay scale of Class-IV employee by being fixed at the minimum regular pay scale w.e.f. 7.9.90 when the writ petition was filed in this Court. Arrears shall be paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This will not prejudicially affect the petitioner's right to claim benefit of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', if any case filed by the petitioner in any competent court is pending. The petitioner shall be paid the cost of Rs. 1,000/-."

3. The petitioner submitted a copy of the order of the High Court to the District Probation and Social Welfare Officer, Alwar, on 1.5.91. When he did not get relief he made a representation dated 21.5.91, which was forwarded by the Assistant Superintendent (Hostel) Kathumar, district Alwar. After waiting for about a month and half, he made representation dated 9.7.91 to the Director, Social Welfare Department and enclosed a copy of the order of the High Court. But, even thereafter, no action was taken by the non-petitioners, inasmuch as, he was neither paid salary in the regular pay scale nor was he allowed arrears of salary. It is relevant to point out that by interim order dated 12.9.90, the Court had stayed the termination of the services of the petitioner and had directed that he shall be allowed to continue in service as he was continuing prior to 3.9.90. After exhausting his efforts to seek implementation of the order of the Court through administrative channel, he filed a contempt petition on 14.8.91.

4. Notice of the contempt petition was issued to the non-petitioners on 25.11.91. On 5.2.92 the Court further called upon to the non-petitioners to show cause as to why they be not punished for contempt of Court, because, even after the service of notice of the Contempt Petition the only step which had been taken was to issue an order dated 28.1.92 sanctioning payment of salary to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 750-12-798-13- 850-15-940, w.e.f. 7.9.90 and for payment of costs. Actual payment was still not done. A reply was, thereafter, filed on 28.2.92. In this reply, the allegations made in the contempt petition have by and large not been disputed. In para 2 of the reply it has been stated that the the photostat copy of the order was received in the department on 29.7.91. The legal opinion was sought from the Government Advocate which was received on 22.8.91, after two reminders were sent on 1.8.91 and 16.8.91. The