JUDGMENT
I. Mahanty, J.
1. The present contempt application has been filed under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the Petitioner Smt. Arati Das on the allegation that the Opposite Parties have willfully and intentionally not complied with the Order dated 16.12.2004 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5819 of 2003 which is quoted herein below:
Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the State.
Learned Counsel for the State on instruction submits that the Director, Higher Education has taken steps for implementation of several orders passed by the Education Tribunal. On consideration of such submission, it is directed that the order of the State Education Tribunal passed in G.I.A. Case No. 28 of 2002 on 12.12.2002 be implemented as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.
Requisites for communication of this order along with copy of the Writ Petition to the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 be filled by 20.12.2004.
The Writ Petition and Misc. case are disposed of.
It would be worthwhile to mention here that prior to passing the aforesaid order, this Court vide Order dated 28.7.2003 had granted a week’s time to the State to obtain instruction as to why the Order dated 11.12.2002 passed by the Education Tribunal, Orissa in G.I.A. Case No. 28 of 2002 has not been given effect and further by Order dated 18.11.2004 further adjournment was granted permitting the State Counsel to obtain instruction on the aforesaid matter and therefore, ultimately after necessary instruction were obtained by the Learned State Counsel, the Order dated 16.12.2004, as noted herein above was passed.
2. It is necessary at this stage to take note of various events, and orders passed earlier, which have a direct bearing on the present case.
1. O.J.C. No. 8765 of 1993 (disposed of on 30.8.1996)
a) The present Petitioner Smt. Arati Das had been appointed as Lecturer in Economics against the second post in Surajmal Saha Mahavidyalaya, Puri and controversy arose between the present Petitioner and one Akshaya Kumar Hota who also claimed to have been appointed as Lecturer in Economics, against the second post in the said college. This controversy was brought before this Court by Smt. Arati Das by way of OJC No. 8765 of 1993 wherein the said Akshaya Kumar Hota was impleaded as Opposite Party No. 6 and the Principal of the said college as Opposite Party No. 4.
This Court by Order dated 30.8.1996 in OJC No. 8765 of 1993 allowed the writ application in favour of the present Petitioner, which reads as follows:
In view of the overwhelming documents in support of the Petitioner, we have no hesitation to hold that she was appointed as a Lecturer in Economics against the second post in Surajmal Saha College on 3.2.1989 and Opposite Party No. 6 was not appointed as such on 24.2.1987, as claimed by him. In the circumstances, we direct the Principal-Opposite Party No. 4 to submit necessary proposal to the Director, Higher Education, Orissa, seeking approval of the Petitioner’s appointment against the second post of Lecturer in Economics in Surajmal Saha College within a period of one month hence. On such proposal being submitted to the Director, Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 will consider the same and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of the proposal.
b) After passing of the Order dated 30.8.1996 as referred herein above in OJC No. 8765 of 1993, the Director, Higher Education Orissa, vide Order dated 25.6.1997 rejected the claim of the Petitioner- Arati Das second post of Lecturer in Economics of Suraj Mahal Saha Mahavidyalaya, Puri relating to approval of appointment and sanction of grant in aid, inter alia on the plea the said college was admitted to Grant-in-Aid in short ‘GIA’ fold from the Sessions 1985-96 and as Smt. Das did not have the requisite qualification at the time of appointment her deemed date of joined is 8.4.1991, i.e., from which date she is eligible to hold the post. Therefore since her deemed date of appointment is after the college come into the fold of GIA, her appointment is irregular as she is not a SSB candidate and therefore, the claim of Smt. A. Das, Lecturer in Economics regarding approval of appointment and sanction of GIA was rejected.
The Petitioner thereafter made various representations to the authorities concerned high lighting the fact that since the Government have already decided to regularize the services of candidates whose appointments were prior to 31.12.1992 by passing Validation Act, 1998 and since the date of joining has been determined to 8.4.1991, her service ought to be regularized and grant in aid ought to be released in her favour.
The Department of Higher Education on receipt her representation sought for various information in letter dated 30.4.2001 as well as 13.7.2001 .The Principal S.M.S., College, Puri did not submit necessary records and the Petitioner herein by providing copies of letters in her possession as well as also drew the attention of the Directorate to an enquiry conducted by Dr. B. Mohapatra, the then Director (H.G.C.T.) on 21.8.1993, from which it was revealed that the records of the College has been manipulated and forged in issuing appointment order in favour of one A.K. Hota as lecturer in Economics against second post and therefore pursuant to the said enquiry, the Director Higher Education has also directed the College authorities to treat the present Petitioner to be appointed against the second post of lecturer in Economics of the said college.
II. G.I.A. Case No. 28 of 2002 (disposed of by the State Education Tribunal vide Order dated 12.12.2002.
c) Since the Petitioner did not get any response from the Director, Higher Education, filed an application under Section 24-B of Orissa Education Act before the State Education Tribunal praying for directing Opposite Party No. 3(Goveming Body of Surajmal Saha Mahavidyalaya) to submit all the records pertaining to her appointment and continuance in SSM, College, for direction to Opposite Party No. 2 Director, Higher Education, Orissa to verify and approve her service and further to direct Opposite Parties 1 and 2 to accord approval of her service in terms of Validation Act, 1998 and release salary with other consequential benefits.
In G.I.A. Case No. 28 of 2002 before-the State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the Secretary, Government of Orissa in Higher Education Department and Director, Higher Education filed an counter affidavit in inter alia taking stand after Validation Act, 1998 came into force with effect from 10.10.1998, that the State Government in Higher Education Department have taken decision to consider the case of those Lecturers appointed between 1 st January, 1985 to 31 st December, 1992 for approval of their services. It was further averred, that since no record was produced by the Principal of the said College, the Director, Higher Education, Orissa, to the Secretary to Government in Higher Education Department along with the enquiry report dated 5.10.1993 of the Deputy Director and for such non-compliance of the records, the case of the Petitioner Smt. Arati Das could not be taken up for consideration.
The State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar by Judgment dated 12.12.2002 allowed the application filed by Smt. Arati Das in G.I.A Case No. 28 of 2002 with the following directions:
In the result the application is allowed. Opposite Party nos. 1 and 2 are directed to regularize the service of the applicant under the provisions of the Validation Act, 1998 and release her salary components by way of grant in-aid from the deemed date of her joining, i.e., 8.4.1991. The amount due to her, both arrear and current be calculated and paid to her preferably within a period of six months hence read with the provision of Section 7-C of the amendment Act.
3. That it is also relevant to take note of the fact that after passing of the order by the State Educational Tribunal, the question as to whether the State would appeal against the said order come up for consideration and the Principal Secretary to Government Law Department, Orissa on 26.4.2006 made the following note:
From the above mentioned facts it is apparent that the State has not denied the claim of Petitioner. The Tribunal has accordingly directed for regularization of her services and to release the salary component by way of grant-in-aid. The State has not appealed against the order. So we have less to agitate in the matter.
Perhaps, no fruitful purpose would be served by going to the Supreme Court at present.
In the circumstances, it is desirable to file a reply before the High Court that the Government would comply the order of the Court within the time specified.”
This note was put up and concurred by the Chief Secretary, Orissa on the same day. This is revealed from Annexure-2 to the affidavit dated 3.1.2007 filed by the Petitioner and it is not denied by the State.
4. The Opposite Parties not having complied with the order of the State Education Tribunal dated 12.12.2002 in G.I.A. case No. 28 of 2002 and order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 16.12.2004 in W.P.(C) No. 5819 of 2003, the Petitioner having no other alternative remedy, filed this contempt application and various orders have been passed therein:
a) 23.9.2005-Notice was issued to the Opposite Parties by registered post with A.D. with a direction that the matter would be listed on 6th January, 2006.
b) 6.1.2006-A show cause was filed by Opposite Party No. 1. This Court considered the show cause affidavit filed by one Swapneswar, Baya S/o. late Banamali Baya, the then working as the Comrnissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Orissa, Higher Education (O.P.No. 1) from which it appears that the case of the Petitioner was not considered due to non-submission of records of the College by the Principal and that the deponent has taken steps and placed the matter in the last Cabinet Sub-Committee meeting held on 19.10.2005 for discussion and taking a decision in the matter for regularization of services of left-out lecturers for validation in which it was decided to examine each and every such left-out cases in detail and to furnish the list of consideration before the Cabinet Sub-Committee in their-next year. The affidavit further states that inclusion of name of the Petitioner in the list of the similar other lecturer’s will necessitate allotment of huge amount towards grant-in-aid and the Opposite Party is taking sincere effects to place the matter before the Cabinent Sub-Committee for obtaining additional budget provision towards grant-in-aid.
This Court held that the show cause filed by Opposite Party No. 1 is not totally satisfactory and prima-facie appears that there is non-compliance of Order dated 16.12.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 581 9 of 2003 and on the prayer of the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties the matter was posted to 21-02-2006
c) 16.03.2006 -On which date this Court was once again constrained to note that there is non-compliance of Order dated 16.12.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5819 of 2003 and in view of the Order dated 6.1.2006 nothing is forthcoming even if the time was granted till 21.2.2006. Hence, this Court directed to initiate a contempt proceeding against Opposite Party No. 1. Opposite part No. 1 filed
Misc. Case No. 84 of 2006, inter alia, seeking extension of time to implement the order and also filed the additional affidavit in Misc. Case No. 50 of 2006 that the services of the Petitioner had already been validated, but payment of salary had not been made.
d) 3.8.2006-On the submission of the Learned Standing Counsel for the State accorded permission to move the appropriate Bench for extension of time for which he did not want to press the Misc. Case No. 84 of 2006 for extension of time which was dismissed, but requested for two weeks time to move the appropriate Bench for orders.
e) 5.12.2006 -On which date the Court was constrained to note that after passing of Order dated 3.8.2006 although three months had elapsed no show cause has been filed by the Opposite Parties and the matter was posted to 4.1.2007 with a direction to inform the Court whether the Order dated 16.12.2004 of this Court has been complied with and as to whether the Petitioner had been paid her dues. In the said order it was made clear “on failure of the Opposite Party No. 1 to comply with the order of the Court and to pay the Petitioner her entitlement, the contempt proceeding which has already been initiated will take its own course.”
f) 4.1.2007- No show cause has been filed nor order of this Court has been complied with and the Petitioner has not been paid her current salary. Considering the prayer of the Learned Government Advocate time was allowed till 12.1.2007 to obtain instruction in the matter.
g) 12.1.2007 -On the prayer of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner time was granted till 16.1.2007 for passing necessary orders. On the same day a show cause affidavit was filed by one Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathy, S/o- Lingaraj Tripathy, presently working as Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education.
h) 17.1.2007- Although synopsis of event has been filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1, an adjournment was sought for on the ground of illness of the Learned Advocate General and it was directed to put up the matter on 29.1.2007.
i) 29.1.2007 -This Court directed Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathy, Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education to appear in Court on 31.1.2007 to answer necessary queries to the show cause affidavit filed on 12.1.2007.
j) 31.1.2007- Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathy, Commissioner-cum-Secretary to government, Department of Higher Education has appeared in person and filed an amendment to the show cause affidavit on that date the personal appearance of Sri Tripathy was dispensed with and the matter was adjourned to 1.2.2007.
k) 1.2.2007 -Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathy, Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education who assumed such office on 19.7.2006 has appeared in person and filed an additional affidavit and a direction was passed calling for the file dealing with letter No. IVHEP-42/02/22926/HE dtd. 2.6.2003 from the record of Opposite Party No. 1 and the matter was adjourned to 12.2.2007.
l) 12.2.2007 -This Court heard Sri Tripathy, the contemnor and upon hearing, the Learned Additional Government Advocate who produced relevant records pursumed to Court’s order, hearing was closed and order reserved.
5. In the original show cause reply dated 12.1.2007 filed by the contemnor, the main thrust of the reply was that while the services of the Petitioner had been validated by Order No. 14979/HE dated 29.4.2006 one part of the direction of the Learned State Education Tribunal, Orissa had been complied with yet no Grant-in aid has been released unless and until the case of the Petitioner was duly considered under the provisions of Grant-in-aid order read with Section 7 -C of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, for which Grant-in-aid could not be released in favour of the Petitioner. In the said show cause a further stand was taken that although Opposite Party No. 1 issued several letters to the College Authorities requesting them to produce the documents for verification in the office chamber of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, but despite all the efforts the College Authorities paid a deaf ear and did not turn up till date for verification and perusal of records so as to enable this deponent regarding entitlement of grant-in-aid in respect of the Petitioner. In essence, the State Education Tribunal’s order had been complied with in part by verifying the service records of the Petitioner, but Opposite Party No. 1 was unable to release/disburse her both, grant-in-aid arrear and current salary which are yet to be calculated paid to her having due regard to the Judgment dated 12.12.2002 passed by the State Education Tribunal, Orissa under the provisions of the Validation Act, 1998 and Section 7 -C of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act. The stand taken by Opposite Party No. 1 in Para graphs. 9 and 10 of the show cause affidavit reads as follows:
9. xx xx xx. In such event the Hon’ble Court directed this Opposite Party to release the grant-in-aid notwithstanding the provisions laid down under the statute this deponent had no objection to release and disburse the amount as due and admissible to her.
10. xx xx xx that as there was some legal impediment to release the grant-in-aid as due and admissible to the Petitioner the same was not complied till date as narrated above in the event if the Hon’ble Court would direct to release grant-in-aid without examining the records and notwithstanding the barrier content in Section 7-C as well as the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
By a further affidavit dated 31.1.2007 Opposite Party No. 1 contemnor sought to file an amendment to the show cause
affidavit and in para. 3 thereof deponent submitted as follows:
That the deponent begs to submit that the contentions raised in para-7 and 10 of the show cause affidavit is neither intentional nor deliberate without any intention to overreach the order of the Hon’ble Court but on a bonafide belief which this deponent prays to delete.
Along with such amendment to show cause affidavit a letter No. 1680 dated 15.1.2007 is annexed as Annexure-E/1 on the basis of the said letter the. deponent in para-7 took plea that after taking over the charge of the office as Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education Department on 19.7.2006 he has taken effective steps for full compliance of this Court’s order and endorsed the file to the Chief Secretary for sanction of necessary funds towards the payment of grant-in-aid and after a lot of persuasion, finally the current salary in shape of block grant was sanctioned vide Government Order No. 1680/HE dated 15.1.2007 with effect from 1.1.2007. The said order was annexed thereto as Annexure-E/1.
6. On 12.2.2007, this Court queried whether the Petitioner has received the salary as sanctioned under Government Order No. 1680 dated 15.1.2007 which Learned Counsel for the Petitioner responded by stating that she has not received her dues till date. On perusal of the said Annexure- E/1 we are of the view that the same has been created for the purpose of clean attempt to convince the Court about the bonafide of the contemnor without there being any real intend of purpose. The said letter was subject to verification of records and subject to modification/cancellation in the event of detection of incorrect/false information. The said letter also mandates that necessary order need be passed by the Director, Higher Education and accordingly the bills may be called for from the Secretary of the Governing Body of the educational institution “before actual payment is made.” It further contends that “the amount so required for block grant will be sanctioned separately.” On reading of Annexure E/1 it is clear that Opposite Party No. 1-contemnor Sri A.K. Tripathy has no intent what-so-ever to comply the direction of this Court and has unpaid an additional direction, which on its face appears to be an order for payment of Block grant, subject to various stipulations. In other words very intricate order of concurrence was passed, clearly in order to defeat the very object of the contempt application.
7. It would be extremely relevant to take note of the following:
a) The aforesaid detailed description has become necessary to high light the plight of the Petitioner, who having been appointed on 3.2.1989 had to file several legal proceedings in order to establish her rights. It would be clear from the above that, at the first instance the Governing Body and the Principal of the College have clearly resorted to forgery and manipulation in order to deny the Petitioner’s claim and her rightful dues by creating documents in favour of one Sri A.K. Hota. This finding has been reached in Order dated 30.8.1996 in OJC No. 5765 of 1993.
b) It is also pertinent to mention here that the Principal of the institution, instead of submitting a proposal in favour of Arati Das (Petitioner) for appointment against the second post of Lecturer in Economics, instead submitted a proposal in favour of one S.N. Pradhan even though the said person had already left the services of the College by then.
c) It is further clear that the Petitioner had to suffer on account of an “order of suspension” order issued against her by the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College which she challenged before this Court in OJC No. 6386 of 1993 which was declared to be illegal.
d) Further it would also be relevant to note here that the Director of Higher Education had conducted an enquiry about the matter of appointment of the Petitioner and the said Enquiry Officer had submitted with the report that the Petitioner Smt. Arati Das was continuing in the second post of Lecturer in Economics since the date of her joining, i.e., 3.2.1989.
e) The Petitioner having been declared by this Court to be the rightful holder of the second post of Lecturer in Economic in the appointed, and no such appoint shall be challenged in any Court of law merely on the ground that such appointment was made otherwise than in accordance with the procedure laid down is the Education Act or the rules framed thereunder.
Provided that the validation of the appointments as aforesaid shall not put persons already appointed regularly and validly or persons who may be appointed on the basis of the recommendation made by the Selection Board prior to the commencement of this Act, in a disadvantageous position in any manner what-so-ever.”
8. In the present case in essence the ground raised by Opposite Party No. 1 is that, in the absence of verification of records as per the provisions of Section 7-C of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, no payment could be made. It is further stated that the Principal of the concerned institute has intimated that the records for the years 1989 – 1995 are not available due to missing of records and without verification of records it would not be appropriate to direct release of grant-in-aid.
a) Taking into consideration the facts narrated herein above, it is quite clear that the Governing Body of the institution is bent upon denying the Petitioner’s dues by fabricating forged documents in favour of one
A.K. Hota and ultimately the Petitioner had to move this Court in OJC No. 8765 of 1993 and therefore it is quite obvious that the Governing Body would not cooperate in this matter to produce the records.
b) The most important point is that the appointment of the Petitioner was made vide letter No. 3.2.1989(Annexure-1) to the Writ Petition by the Principal-cum-Secretary of the Governing Body of the said college, to the post of Lecturer in Economics of Surajmal Sana Mahavidyalaya, Puri and the said post having been sanctioned by the State Government in Higher Education Department against the second post of Lecturer in Economics, this Court vide Order dated 30.8.1996 passed in OJC No. 8765 of 1993 directed the Principal- Opposite Party No. 4 in the said case to submit necessary proposal to the Director, Higher Education, Orissa seeking approval of the Petitioner’s appointment against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Economics in the said college, no question of re-verification of the appointment of the Petitioner can nor does survive.
c) That apart, from the above it is clear from the present proceeding that the Department which is headed by Sri
A.K. Tripathy, Commissioner-cum -Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, had itself conducted an enquiry by Dr. B. Mohapatra, the then Director (H.G.C.T.) on 21.8.1993, who had submitted his report on 5.10.1993, clearly establishing the Petitioner’s right and further also highlighting the irregularity of the Governing Body of the Surajmal Saha Mahavidyalaya, Puri.
d) Therefore, it is also clear that the plea that due to non-verification of records, the payment of salary could not be made is holly illusory and a clear attempt to circumvent the orders of this Court. It is further clear from the reply to the show cause affidavit filed by the Petitioner on 28.11.2005 and the Annexure-3 thereto that by letter dated 23.6.2003, the Principal of the Surajmal Saha Mahavidyalaya, Puri has furnished all necessary records to the Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar for verification purportedly in compliance with the orders of this Court. By the said letter copies of various documents were submitted. From the said communication it is further clear that the Principal-cum-Secretary of the Surajmal Saha Mahavidyalaya, Puri had furnished all required documents and also declared that there is no claimant for the second post in Economics held by the Petitioner Arati Das. Further the original Admission Register including Long Roll, Result sheet for calculation of work load as well as Acquaintance Roll were submitted for verification and regularization of services of the Petitioner.
9. In the light of all the facts stated herein above, it is absolutely clear that the reasons now being floated by Opposite Party No. 1 i.e., non-verification of records is clearly a mirage and establishes in absolute clear terms the real intention of the Opposite Party No. 1, not to comply with the order of this Court, at any cost. We are also constrained to observe that the Petitioner whose deemed date of joining has been fixed with effect from 8.4.1991, the Opposite Party No. 1 has not released grant-in-aid even though her services have been validated under the Validation Act, 1998. This clearly exhibits the intention of the Opposite Party- contemnor not to comply with the Court’s Order dated 16.12.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5819 of 2003 and it indicates clear obstinate behavior on the part of Opposite Party-contemnor not to comply the Court’s Order dated 16.12.2004, without taking effective steps for implementation of the same, on vague and fictitious grounds.
10. In this regard it would be appropriate to refer the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan; wherein it has been held that;
xx xx xx, it is no longer open to the Government to go behind the orders and truncate the effect of the orders passed by this Court by hovering over the rules to get round the result, to legitimize legal alibi to circumvent the orders passed by this Court. Thus it is clear that the concerned officers have deliberately made concerted effort to disobey the orders passed by this Court to deny the benefits to the Petitioner. So, we are left with no option but to hold that the Respondent has deliberately and willfully, with an intention to defeat the orders of this Court, passed the impugned order.
We are constrained to observe that the facts of the present case are akin to the facts that arose in the case referred herein above. We are of the opinion that there is absolutely no justification at all, after having validating the appointment of the Petitioner for not disbursing financial benefits to the Petitioner and therefore, the stand of Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathy, Commissioner- cum-Secretary to Government of Orissa, Department of Higher Education, clearly exhibits a defiant attitude not to release her salary components by way of grant-in-aid from the deemed date of her joining i.e., from 8.4.1991 and the amount due to her both, arrear and current.
11. Although the case was fixed to 27.2.2007 for delivery of Judgment in the matter and the Judgment was ready for pronouncement, Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathy, Contempnor appeared in person and filed another affidavit enclosing therein certain documents indicating that the financial sanction has already been granted for release of the salary of the Petitioner. Sri Sisir Kumar Das, Learned Addl. Government Advocate made a prayer on behalf of his client that since the current salary had already been released in favour of the Petitioner and that orders have already been passed for making provision in the ensuing Budget for release of the arrear salary, he fervently prayed that the Court should take into account such further development in the matter. Therefore, in consideration of request of the Learned Addl. Government Advocate and filing of further affidavit on behalf of Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathy, Contemnor the matter was directed to be listed on 13.3.2007 for delivery of orders.
12. After having considered the facts and the pleadings as well as affidavits filed by the Contemnor we are convinced that Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathy, Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Orissa, Department of Higher Education is guilty of committing contempt of the Court for willful disobedience/non-compliance with the direction of this Court dated 16.12.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5819 of 2003.
13. Now having come to the conclusion that the Contemnor is guilty of willful disobedience/non-compliance with the direction of this Court, now we have to consider what punishment would be appropriate to be imposed considering the facts and circumstances of this case.
In consideration of the affidavit dated 27.2.2007 filed by Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathy, Contemnor stating therein, that, he has taken all the necessary steps for compliance of the direction of this Court and tenders an ‘un-qualified apology’ for the delay in compliance, as well as the request made by Mr. Sisir Kumar Das, Learned Addl. Government Advocate for taking a lenient view in the matter, in view of the steps taken by the Contemnor for compliance, we are of the view, that, instead of imposing punishment of imprisonment or fine, we adopt a lenient course and caution the Contemnor to be more heedful of judicial orders and not to repeat such contumacious conduct in future and to ensure that all steps are taken in furtherance to the averments contained in the affidavit dated 27.2.2007 and shall be responsible for release of the outstanding dues in favour of the Petitioner.
The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.
B.P. Das, J.
14. I agree