The government must show bonafides and pursue matters diligently before the appropriate court, and a belated appeal cannot be used as a legal alibi for non-compliance with the court's order.

TARUN AGARWALA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Court finally allowed the writ petition No. 21103 of 1999 by a judgment dated 26. 3. 2004 quashing the impugned order dated 28. 6. 95 and holding that the petitioner would be deemed to be in service till 30. 6. 97 and would be entitled to all consequential benefits including salary and retirement benefits. The respondents were further directed to pay the entire arrears of salary within 8 weeks from the date of the submission of a certified copy of the order. The respondents were also directed to pay the retirement benefits treating the applicant to be in service till 30. 6. 1997.

( 2 ) THE judgement of this Court was not complied by the opposite party and accordingly the present contempt application was filed on 28. 7. 2004. Notices were issued to the opposite party no. 1 on 29. 7. 2004 and one more opportunity was granted to the opposite party to comply with the order of the Court. On 17. 9. 2004, the opposite party No. 1 filed a counter affidavit indicating that the opposite party has sought instructions from the higher authorities for the compliance of the order and prayed that the hearing of the contempt petition be adjourned for two months to enable the opposite party to take a decision and comply with the orders of the Court.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the contempt application, it transpires that the opposite party No. 1 was transferred and an impleadment application was filed to implead the opposite party No. 2, who was subsequently impleaded by an order dated 21. 7. 2005. The opposite party No. 2 has also filed a counter affidavit indicating that the State Government by a letter dated 18. 3. 2005 granted permission to file a Special Appeal, pursuant to which a Special Appeal No. 289 of 2005 was filed and, therefore has prayed that the contempt proceedings be deferred till the disposal of the special Appeal.

( 4 ) SRI Nurul Huda, the Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party contended that since the Special Appeal is pending consideration before this Honble Court, the contempt proceedings should be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the Special Appeal. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Avadh Singh v. Lalji Yadav and Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 841 of 2001 decided on 20. 8. 2001, in which it was held that the contempt proceedings should have not been continued in view of the appeal having been filed against the said judgment. Further reliance was placed in the case of Modern food Industries (India) Ltd. and Anr. v. Sachidanand Dass and Anr. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 465 and in the case of State of J and K v. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan and Ors. JT1992 (5 )SC 278 , 1992 (2 )SCALE 424 , (1992 )4 SCC167 , [1992 ]supp1 SCR43 , 1992 (2 )UJ720 (SC ), (1992 )2 UPLBEC1166.

( 5 ) IN my opinion, the aforesaid judgements are distinguishable. No doubt if an appeal or stay vacating application is pending which has not been considered by the writ Court, in that event, it is always appropriate that the contempt proceedings should remain in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or of the stay vacating application. But that does not mean that in each and every case, the contempt proceedings should remain in abeyance merely because an appeal has been filed or that a stay vacating application was pending. The opposite party must show their bonafides and place before the Court that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation; that the department or the Government agency was pursuing the matter deligently before the appropriate Court.

( 6 ) IN Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. AIR2004 sc 4277 , 2004 (4 )AWC2955 (SC ), 2004 (3 )BLJR1802 , 2004 (4 )CTC398 , [2004 (4 )JCR1 (SC )], JT2004 (8 )SC 163 , 2004 (3 )KLT407 (SC ), (2004 )4 MLJ106 (SC ), 2004 (7)SCALE117 , (2004 )7 SCC261 , 2004 (2 )UJ1331 (SC ), the Supreme Court held that the Court is only concerned with the question as to whether the earlier decision which ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document