Bhaiya Lal Yadav vs Commissioner, Allahabad Division and others

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying that a mandamus should be issued to the respondents to release the six months salary as well as one annual increment.

It was contended that the salary for six months and annual increment was not paid on account of an order of punishment of stoppage of annual increment and adverse entry passed by the District Magistrate, which order was set aside in appeal by the Commissioner, inspite of which, the salary was not released nor increment was given. The reason for non-payment of the salary was that the order of the Commissioner was not available with them and that the service book of the petitioner was incomplete.

This Court by an order dated 9th October, 2012 had directed the learned Standing Counsel to receive instructions. On 31st October, 2012 the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by its order dated 22nd October, 2012 directed the completion of the service book of the petitioner for the purpose of calculating the arrears. Based on that order, the Tehsildar in its order dated 29th October, 2012 reported that one month time was required to complete the formalities and pay the arrears.

In the light of the aforesaid, the matter was directed to be listed on 30th November, 2012 on which date the arrears was required to be paid failing which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was required to file his personal affidavit. No such personal affidavit was filed nor the arrears were cleared and accordingly, the Court by an order dated 30th November, 2012 directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to appear on 3rd December, 2012. On 3rd December, 2012 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not appear nor any affidavit was filed nor the arrears were cleared. The matter was brought to the knowledge of the Chief Standing Counsel and, on his request, the matter was placed today.

Today the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has appeared along with an order dated 27th November, 2012 indicating that the arrears have been calculated and has been sent to the treasury for the release of the amount. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has however, failed to give any plausible explanation as to why he could not appear yesterday or file his personal affidavit.

The Court is constrained to observe that the orders of the Court are required to be complied strictly and that there can be no laxity on behalf of any Authority or any Officer of the State. When the Court directs an Officer to appear in person he is required to appear unless there are compelling reasons for that Officer in not appearing on that particular date but by not appearing before the Court when called for and by not giving any plausible explanation, it could only lead to one conclusion, namely, that the Officer has utter disregard to the dignity and majesty of the Court. By lowering the dignity of the Court, the Officer is in contempt.

The Court is of the view that the Officer has committed Contempt of the Court for disregarding the orders of the Court, but the Court will not proceed against him, since the Court is magnanimous and has a very large heart and leaves it open to the Chief Secretary to take such action against the Officer concerned. Since the grievance of the petitioner has now been complied with, the writ petition has become in fructuous and is dismissed as such.

Let a certified copy of this order be given by the Registry to the Chief Standing Counsel within a week who, in turn, will forward it to the Chief Secretary for necessary information and action.