TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 61 of 1971 was made the subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal No. 15 of 1974, which was preferred on April 25,1974. An application for stay of the decision of the learned single Judge, being C.M.P. No. 519 of 1974, was instituted on June 6, 1974. It is the petitioner's case that meanwhile he submitted his joining report on May 16, 1974 in the office of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hamirpur, but he was not permitted to join duty. At an earlier stage in the course of this proceeding this fact appears to have been in dispute. It is, however, conceded now that the petitioner had furnished the joining report on May 16,1974, as alleged by him, and that it was forwarded to the second respondent (Director of Consolidation, Himachal Pradesh, Simla). It is the case of the petitioner that he was thus prevented from joining duty, although, as a result of the decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 61 of 1971, he was entitled to join duty and the operation and implementation of the said decision was not stayed at the relevant time. On the stay application preferred in the Letters Patent Appeal (C.M.P. No. 519 of 1974) an order was mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (till the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal) subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. There was no stay as regards the payment, of arrears of salary up to the date of the stay order and the petitioner was, therefore, entitled to be paid the arrears of salary up to such date without attachment of any condition. However, no payment of arrears covering such period was made till the month of June/July, 1981. Besides, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on May 16,1980 and the petitioner resumed duty on August 4,1980. The payment of arrears of salary for the intervening period to which the petitioner became entitled upon the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal was also not made till the month of June/July, 1981. Indeed, once the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, the entire arrears of salary including that for the period during which the Letters Patent Appeal remained pending ought to have been paid to the petitioner with the utmost expedition. However, the payment, in fact, was delayed till the month of June/July, 1981, as earlier pointed out. No valid justification is shown to exist for the delayed payment. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od, who was appointed amicus curiae. 9. Before parting with the matter, we regard it to be expedient to observe that an impression has been left on our minds that the concerned authorities failed to reinstate and to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner soon after the decision of the learned single Judge, even though at the material time no stay order was operative, as they appeared to be entertaining the belief that since a Letters Patent Appeal was preferred, the matter had once again become sub judice and that, therefore, there was no legal obligation to grant the benefits accruing due to the petitioner pursuant to the decision of the learned single Judge. This belief, which appears to have been entertained by the concerned authorities, is wholly unwarranted. Once a case is decided, it is the bounden duty of the State and its subordinates to implement, with the utmost expedition, the said decision. In a Government which is ruled by law, there must be complete awareness to carry out faithfully and honestly the decisions rendered by courts of law after effective adjudication. Then only will private individuals, organisations and institutions learn to respect the decisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri141 would not be applicable to this instance. Further against the order, we have moved the Supreme Court and as such, the matter can be safely deemed to be sub judice. The decision of the Commissioner was challenged in a writ petition before the Orissa High Court. The High Court issued a notice to the Commissioner taking exception to the observations made in his order that since the decision of the High Court was under challenge before the Supreme Court, the matter could be regarded as sub judice. The plea taken up by the Commissioner, who appeared before the High Court in response to the notice, was that under the Constitution the decision of the Supreme Court was the law of the land. He, therefore, .bona fide entertained the opinion that when the matter was under appeal or otherwise before the Supreme Court, the point of law became sub judice and only the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter would be binding on the subordinate authorities. The Commissioner further pleaded that the proceedings before him were of administrative nature and that the act of not following the decision of the High Court in such a proceeding would not amount to contempt of court. The High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority and respect of the High Court. Indeed, while the former conduct has repercussions on an individual case and on a limited number of persons, the latter conduct has a much wider and more disastrous impact. It is calculated not only to undermine the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court generally, but is also likely to subvert the Rule of law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the administration of law. On this view of the matter, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Commissioner. 11. It will be noticed that the decision in Baradakanta Mishra's case wholly endorses the view earlier expressed by us. Be it stated that in that case, even though the Commissioner had declined to follow the decision of the High Court rendered in a different case on the ground that an appeal having been preferred against the said decision its binding character had disappeared, the contempt jurisdiction was invoked and exercised. When there is disobedience to a specific order of the court, whether on account of sheer neglect or refusal to implement the order on the ground that an appeal is preferred or intended to be preferred, the contempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
