JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

It could be one of the examples of a malicious intent of the State counsel, to defend the contemnor, where an endeavour has been made by the learned Standing Counsel for the State to brutally assassinate the valuable time of the Court. The writ Court in the writ petition, which was preferred by the petitioner had by an order dated 08.11.2017, directed the respondent to consider the aspect of remittance of minimum of pay scale to the petitioner based upon the criteria as it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgement rendered in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Jagjit Singh & Others [(2017) 1 SCC 148]. Meaning thereby, the consideration which was directed to be made by the respondent was strictly in adherence to the principles and norms as laid down by the judgement of Jagjit Singh's case (supra).

2. On its non-compliance, the contempt was filed by the petitioner on 15.12.2019, the reference of the said date of filing of contempt is being deliberately made in the order in order to answer the question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, in relation to the embargo of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts