The obligation for dearness relief payment to pensioners originates from judicial direction, not discretion, and must be adhered to within a reasonable timeframe.

1. This is an application under Art.215 of the Constitution of India read with S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act , 1971 for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 22-4-97 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 259/95.

2. In Civil Rule No. 259/95 filed by the petitioner - Association on behalf of the State Government pensioners, the petitioner had prayed for a writ of mandamus on the State - respondents to pay Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to Central Government Pensioners and by judgment and order dated 22-4-97, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to pay the State Government pensioners Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners. In the said judgment and order, the learned single Judge also found that as on 1-4-95, the State Government paid Dearness Relief up to 83% whereas the Central Government paid Dearness Relief up to 125% as on 1-1-95 and there was a clear gap of 42% between the rate of Dearness Relief that had been paid by the State Government and the rate of Dearness Relief that had been paid by the Central Government and directed the respondents to pay the 20% of the unpaid Dearness Relief by 22-6-97 and the balance 22% of the Dearness Relief by 22-8-97.

3. At the hearing of this contempt petition, Mr. D. K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - Association, submitted that by the aforesaid judgment and order, the learned single Judge clearly directed the respondents to pay the State Government pensioners Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners. Hence, the respondents were not only required to pay the aforesaid dearness relief of 42% which became due owing to gap between the rate as paid by the State Government as on 1-4-95 and the rate as paid by the Central Government as on 1-1-95, but also were required to pay to the State Government pensioners dearness relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners from time to time as and when announced by the Central Government after 1-1-95. Mr. Biswas further stated that though the aforesaid gap of 42% in the dearness relief between the rate as paid by the State Government as on 1-1-95 has now been taken care of, and the instalments as fixed by the Court in the aforesaid judgment and order for payment of the aforesaid gap of 42% have been paid to the State Govt. pensioners, after 1-1-95 the Central Government has paid further dearness relief to its pensioners but the State Govt. of Tripura has not paid the said dearness relief to its pensioners. He explained that the object of dearness relief is to neutralize the rise in prices of essential commodities and the cost of living, but this object has been frustrated by the respondents by withholding the dearness relief on one ground or the other. According to Mr. Biswas, therefore, there was wilful disobedience of the direction of the learned single Judge in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22-4-97 to the respondents to pay the State Government pensioners dearness relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners.

4. Mr. B. R. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that by the said judgment and order of the learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 259/95 time limits were fixed only for payment of the two instalments towards the dues of dearness relief of 42% which was found to be the gap between the rate of dearness relief as paid by the State Government as on 1-4-95 and the rate of dearness relief a