IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.823 of 2010 1. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDEY S/O LATE SHYAMA PANDEY R/O MOHANPUR, P.S.- LAXMIPUR, DISTT.- JAMUI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANJANI KUMAR SINGH, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. K.K. PATHAK, SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES ( HIGHER EDUCATION ),BIHAR, PATNA 4. SHYAM NARAYAN KUNWAR, DIRECTOR HUMAN RESOURCES, BIHAR, PATNA 5. RAM BUJHAWAN SINGH, DIRECTOR BIHAR RASTRIYA BHASHA PARISHAD, SAIDPUR, PATNA ----------- 4/ 13/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the opposite parties. A supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf of the Director, Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad and on behalf of Special Secretary, Department of H.R.D. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11959/99 with a claim to be considered for promotion. He was directed to represent. On his representation followed termination in violation of law, set aside in C.W.J.C. No. 1060/08. The order of the Court is stated to have been served on the respondents on 11.1.2010, wrongly typed as 11.1.2009). The present application was then filed on 25.2.2010. On 19.1.2011 four weeks time was granted to the opposite parties to file show cause indicating that further adjournment may only be granted upon imposition of costs. That failed to deter the opposite parties by assisting the Court in timely dispensation of justice. On 9.3.2011 the Court granted further time subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/- regarding an 2 explanation in the show cause for the delay in filing of the reply, fixing liability and recovering the cost from the delinquent concerned. The show cause by the Special Secretary does not deny the assertion of the petitioner that he submitted a copy of the order of the Court on 11.1.2010, but acknowledges only the reminder given by the petitioner on 1.2.2010. It then states that several letters and reminders were given to the Opposite Party No.5, the Director, Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad by the Department of H.R.D. Finally, Opposite Party No.5 informed that he has deposited the costs and joining of the petitioner has been accepted on 4.4.2011. The show cause on behalf of Opposite Party No.5 states that after the petitioner represented with a copy of the order of the Court, he recommended the same to the Department of H.R.D. for necessary action and approval. The Department of H.R.D. advised him to file an L.P.A. There is no statement what happened thereafter. The Department of H.R.D. never informed him of the filing of any contempt application but he was informed of the same for the first time on 3.3.2011. He then revoked the termination of the petitioner. The Special Secretary and the Director quite obviously are at loggerheads with each other in a 3 desperate attempt not to invite the wrath of the Court on whom responsibility be fixed for the delay in filing of the show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the joining given on 11.1.2010 has been accepted in the aforesaid manner only on 4.4.2011. The Court fails to understand what approval was Opposite Party No.5 granting to the joining of the petitioner. It was an order of the Court. There was no occasion for Opposite Party No.5 to sit over the order of the Court as a superior authority to accept or not to accept the joining of the petitioner. He was required to do so on 11.1.2010 itself, the day the order of the Court was brought to his attention by the petitioner. The Court was satisfied that the Special Secretary and the Director both were liable for imposition of heavy costs not only for wasting the time of the Court, but harassing a citizen in the background of the controversy and even after the orders of the Court. The Court, however, refrains from doing so. The Court however does consider it proper and necessary to notice the manner in which the officials of the State who are reposed power in trust by the State to act in the best interest of the State fritter away the resources of the State in frivolous litigations which is 4 virtually defenceless. The power does not inhere in the Officer. It inheres in the chair. The present is a classic case how officials of the State resort to every nook and corner of the legal arena to deny justice to a citizen. Frivolous actions ensure that timely justice is denied which virtually amounts to denying justice under the old adage “justice delayed is justice denied”. The Court put a question to the counsel for the Special Secretary and the Director as to why in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner should not be directed payment of salary from 11.1.2010 to 3.4.2011 not from the coffers of the State, but from their salary. The joint submission was for time to seek instructions. This Court directs the Principal Secretary, in light of the present discussion contained in the order to grant a personal hearing to the Special Secretary and the Director in a joint sitting with them and then fix and determine liability on both or either of them as the case may be for the salary of the petitioner from the period dated 11.1.2010 to 3.4.2011, to be complied with within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Principal Secretary. 5 The petitioner, if so advised, may represent for the original relief of promotion for which he had earlier approached the Court, but ended up with termination. The contempt proceedings stand disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)