M.B. Sharma, J. - (1.) This is a contempt petition arising out of the order dated 17th December, 1990 of this court. Under the aforesaid order this court has allowed the writ petition and set aside the penalty of removal from service which was inflicted on the petitioner. It was also directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to be continuous in service and shall be reinstated immediately and will be entitled for all consequential benefits. It was further left open for the respondents to enquire into the charges afresh if so deemed proper. After the aforesaid order was made, it was incumbent on the respondents to have complied with the order, within reasonable time. We are in February, 1992 and it can be said that more than one year has elapsed since the order was made. Even if no time was specified in the order to comply with it, it was the duty of the respondents to have complied with the order within reasonable time or to come out with an application for extention of time which should be filed within three months of the order. But the practice has developed that orders of this court are not complied with even when the time is specified in the order, and if the time is not specified, within reasonable time. It is because the courts are taking lenient view. But it has come to our notice and that day is not very far off when the courts will come harshly on the contemnors and some of them in such of the cases in which case of contempt of the order of this court is made out, they may be punished.
(2.) In the instant case, as said earlier, more than one year has elapsed and the court's order has not been complied with. Once the penalty was set aside and it was ordered that the petitioner shall be deemed to be continuous in service and will be entitled for all consequential benefits, the petitioner was not entitled not only for the salary which he was drawing when the penalty of dismissal was imposed on him, but to the salary which he would have been entitled due to the revision and fixation in accordance with rules and in accordance with the revision of the pay scales from time to time. The officers should have implemented the order of this court, who are also Government servants and they may also face similar situation and I fail to understand when there is no personal interest involved of the officers, why the orders of this court are not complied with immediately. They may also have to face similar situation and only remedy open for them is to come to this court. But they only feel pinch as and when occasion arises. Be that as it may, Mr. Jain learned counsel for the petitioner has contested that if his pay is fixed in accordance with revised pay scales from time to time, the amount due shall be about Rs. 1,90,000/- and to end the controversy he does not, for the present, dispute that the amount of Rs. 1,49,000/- which the petitioner is said to have misappropriated, may be deducted from his outstandings, subject to the decision of the departmental inquiry which the respondents still intend to initiate and the balance should be paid to him.
(3.) To put and end to the controversy, I hereby direct that the fixation of the petitioner in accordance with the rules in force from time to time, shall be done immediately but in no case later than one and a half months from today and after deducting the aforesaid amount which shall remain in trust with the respondents till the enquiry which the respondents intend to initiate afresh concludes, and the balance should be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be paid the salary which may be payable to him as per his fixation. Mr. Jain undertakes that his client will furnish an affidavit to the effect that he was not gainfully employed. If the order is not complied with, the contemnors are directed to be personally present in this court to hear the order which the court intends to pass in this case, on 24th March, 1992. Order accordingly.;