The judgment establishes the principle that willful and deliberate defiance of a court's order and judgment, especially by a public official, constitutes contempt of court and may result in imprisonment and fine.

( 1 ) HEARD Shri Krishnaji Khare counsel for the applicant and Shri C. B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II for the opposite party No. 1.

( 2 ) AT the first blush, this case appeared to be an exercise in futility and I was about to discharge the notices because the executor of the judgment, Smt. Maya Niranjan, had already been transferred from the post and the order and judgment of the Court had been complied by her successor, though after more than four years when it was to be complied within two months. It appeared to be yet another case of stagnant officialdom relying upon the procedural delays, which mars the working of nearly every department of the Government. But the counsel for the applicant, a reasonable man, begged couple of minutes, otherwise, he said, he would be failing in his duty to the Courts and the society. With some reluctance, I agreed.

( 3 ) HE started with some brief facts and took me to certain paragraphs of the writ judgment and couple of paragraphs of counter-affidavit and its annexures. And he stopped. I could not. We together read the judgment, the petition and the counter with its annexures. He was right. Though it was agonizing reading, but it brought forth the defiant and "care two hoots" attitude of Smt. Maya Niranjan. A sense of helplessness slowly crept in, but soon gave way to the duty that I owe to the institution and the society.

( 4 ) SMT. Maya Niranjan is a veterant of contempt matters. She has about 60 matters pending against her before this Court. It spans her entire career.

( 5 ) THE applicant was appointed as a farrash, on a fixed salary, in a duly recognized and aided Intermediate College on 27-10-1959. He was given permanent appointment as a peon with effect from 1-8-1973. The date of birth of the applicant was recorded in the Service Book as 13-7-1944 and it remained unchallenged for more than two decades. However, he was restrained from functioning as such by the College Authorities with effect from 13-7-1994, treating his date of birth as 13-7-1934. Aggrieved, he represented his cause before the District inspector of Schools II, who, after due enquiry and opportunity to the Management, held by his order dated 29-11-1994, after examining the school leaving certificate, managers Returns etc. , that his date of birth was 13-7-1944, therefore, the applicant was to retire in July, 2004. This order was never set aside by any Superior Officer of the Education Department. Nevertheless, the Management preferred a Writ Petition No. 2022 of 1995 against the aforesaid order wherein an interim order, staying the operation of the order dated 29-11-1994, was passed. Both the parties exchanged their pleadings. During pendency of the writ petition, the opposite party No. 1 directed the Associate district Inspector of Schools, vide her order dated 22-1-2000, to enquire into the correctness of the date of birth of the applicant recorded in the Service Book. The Associate district Inspector of Schools, without any opportunity to the applicant, finalized the enquiry and submitted a report dated 4-2-2000 to the opposite party No. 1, holding that the date of birth of the applicant was 1934. The aforesaid enquiry report was filed in the pending writ petition through a supplementary affidavit on 11-2-2000. A learned single Judge of this Court, after hearing the parties and after considering the enquiry report in detail, rejected the enquiry report and dismissed the writ petition vide order and judgment dated 21-2-2000 with the following directions :-

"for the reasons given above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The applicant and opposite party No. 3 are directed to reinstate the opposite party No. 4 in service and pay his entire arrears of salary within a period of two months from the date of a certified copy of this order is produced before the opposite party No. 3. "

( 6 ) IN the writ petition the opposite party no. 1, was impleaded as opposite party No. 3 whilst the applicant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document