Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. An order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 7.6.1996 directing the applicants to include the petitioner as a member of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. This order was not challenged by the applicant by filing appeal. Rather an application was filed on 27.11.1997 seeking modification of the aforesaid order. It deserves to be noticed here that this application for modification was beyond limitation. The application remained pending in this Court and was ultimately disposed of on 9.5.2008 with the observation that the application is not maintainable. Even at that stage no appeal was filed against either of the two owners dated 7.6.1996 and 9.5.2008. In the mean time the writ petitioner had filed contempt application on 5.12.1997. The application for contempt came up for hearing before the appropriate Court on 12.2.2009 and the judgment was delivered on 17.4.2009. The Court took notice of the various events leading to the filing of the contempt application and made the following observations:- "Now that the applications for vacating the orders dated 7.6.1996 have been dismissed and the same have not been challenged in any other proceedings. I may not be unjustified in committing the contemnors/respondents for contempt of Court based on the authority of these decisions since it is not open to me to test the correctness of the orders dated 7.6.1996. However, I must bear in mind that the jurisdiction to punish for civil contempt is exercised by Courts with caution and circumspection. When a party by his wilful reasonable cause or justification and thereby manifests extreme lack of solicitude for the Court, it ought to be the endeavour of the Court in exercise of contempt powers to prevent undermining of its dignity, majesty and prestige and also to uphold the rule of law so that a decision which was attained finality is duly implemented. But would the Court be overzealous to ensure compliance with an order passed by it even though it is apparent that an attempt to have it set aside has been nullified because of filing of an improper application ? Should the basic duty of dispensing justice to all be jettisoned because of technicalities which are nothing but handmaids of justice ? I think the answer ought to be in the negative. It is noticed that immediately after the orders dated 7.6.1996 had been passed and communicated to the contemnors/respondents, efforts were made by them to ascertain facts. Having been entitled to be enrolled under the 1995 Scheme, they applied for vacating the said orders on 27.11.1997. After remaining pending for eleven long years, the applications have been dismissed. The Contempt Rules have thereafter been heard by me. There cannot be any doubt that after the writ petitions were disposed of finally, the contemnors/ respondents could not have prayed for setting aside or vacating of the orders dated 7.6.1996 without taking recourse of proper remedies. However, the fact that an attempt was made is a pointer to the fact that they were not sitting idle. In such circumstances, it is difficult for me to return a finding at this stage that there has been wilful and deliberate violation of the Court's orders dated 7.6.1996. I, therefore, do not propose to proceed further with the Contempt Rules. The same are adjourned, returnable on 19.6.2009. It shall be open to the contemnors/respondents either to comply with the orders dated 7.6.1996 or to have the same set aside by the Competent Court in the meantime."
(2.) Armed with this order, the applicant has filed the present application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the initial order dated 7.6.1996. The exact delay is 4726 days.
(3.) An affidavit in support of the application has been filed. The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition. The applicant has also filed a supplementary affidavit. We have perused the application and various affidavits filed by the parties in connection thereto. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the parties.;