Summarize the following court judgment. t Petition (Civil) No. 27860 of 1987 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 591 of 1987. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 591 of 1987. 282 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). Pankaj Kalra for the Petitioners. M.K. Banerjee	 Solicitor General	 A.K. Ganguli	 Ms. A. Subhashini	 P. Parmeshwaran and B. Parthasarthi for the Respondents. The following order of the Court was delivered: O R D E R An application under Article 32 of the Constitution being Writ Petition No. 591 of 1987 has been filed in this Court on behalf of 40 employees working in the Pension Paying office	 Pokhara in Nepal asking for a direction to the Union of India to make the services of the petitioners permanent and for further directions in the matter of payment of allowances and other material benefits as payable to similar employees under the Union Government. Notice was ordered on the application on 14th July	 1987	 and two weeks ' time was allowed to the respondents for filing their counter affidavit. On 3rd August	 1987	 the court directed as follows: "Two weeks are allowed to the respondents for filing a counter affidavit. No further time will be allowed. One week thereafter is allowed for filing rejoiner. Put up this matter after three weeks. Meanwhile	 status quo as on today shall be maintained." (underlining is ours). On 7th August	 1987	 the Court made the following further order: "Issue notice returnable on August 14	 1987. Mr. B. Parathasarathy accepts the notice for Union of India. Respondent is directed to file counter affidavit within one week from today. In the meanwhile petitioner No. 9 will not be evicted from the quarter now occupied by him. " Again on 14th August	 1987	 the Court further directed: 283 " . Petitioner No.9 will be put back in possession of the government quarter if he has already been evicted . " Ultimately on 11th September	 1987	 a three Judge Bench of this Court directed: "Petitioner No. 9 will be reinstated in service and he will also have to be put in possession of his quarter forth with." On the allegation that the directions of this Court in regard to petitioner No. 9 were not implemented	 the present contempt proceeding has been initiated on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioners have alleged that with the filing of the writ petition	 the treatment provided to the petitioners by the establishment has undergone a change and those of the respondents who have local base in Nepal have started ill treating the petitioners. Several allegations have been made in support of the aforesaid plea. After notice was issued on this petition	 the different respondents have filed separate affidavits in return. The Indian Embassy for Nepal is located at Kathmandu. The Pension Paying office is maintained at some distance at a place called Pokhara. It is the common case of the parties that the necessity to maintain such an office is linked up with the historical fact that several inhabitants of Nepal worked in the Indian Army under the Gorkha Regiment. Mainly for their convenience this extra territorial establishment is being maintained. Some of the petitioners are India based while others are residents of Nepal. The establishment at Pokhara is under the direct control of an officer attached to the Indian Embassy styled as officer in Charge	 Indian Embassy	 Pension Paying office	 Pokhara. The Ambassador of the Indian Embassy at Kathmandu	 being the head of Indian Government establishments in Nepal	 has also supervisory jurisdiction over the Pay office. Respondent No. S	 the Military and Air Attache of the Indian Embassy is the link between the Embassy establishment at Kathmandu and the said Officer in Charge at Pokhara. Respondent No. 3 is the Controller of Defence Accounts who inter alia oversees the disbursement of the pension of the ex Army personnel. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India through its Defence Secretary and respondent No. 2 is the Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs. Admittedly both these respondents 284 are based in Delhi and have been impleaded being in overall charge of their establishments. Shri S.K. Bhatnagar	 Defence Secretary	 in his affidavit has taken the stand that he was not personally impleaded in the writ petition. Only when he was served with notice in the contempt matter he came to know about Court 's directions and realised the full implication of the situation when he had a conference with his senior counsel on December 6	 1987. Immediate action was taken to ensure appropriate compliance. Shri K.P.S. Menon	 Foreign Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs has also taken the plea that he was not personally impleaded as a party in the writ petition and came to know about the Court 's order at the same conference with senior counsel on December 6	 1987	 and ensured immediate compliance with Court 's directions. Both these Secretaries to the Government have tendered unconditional apology. The third respondent is the Controller of Defence Accounts	 Central Command	 Meerut. He has taken the stand that petitioner No. 9	 Shri C.N. Dubey	 is not an employee of the establishment of the Controller of Defence Accounts at Meerut nor is he an employee under his administrative control. According to him	 he has no concern with any executive or administrative matter relating to the Pension Paying office at Pokhara. Respondent No. 4	 the Ambassador	 was not subjected to the contempt proceedings. Respondent No. 5 is the Military and Air Attache of the Indian Embassy at Kathmandu and is in charge of the general administration of the military wing. Apart from offering unconditional apology	 he has indicated that Dubey has been restored to service and he has been provided with residential accommodation and for the period he was out of possession of the official residence	 rent by way of compensation has already been ordered to be paid to him. It is clear from the orders made by this Court and the facts appearing on the record that the responsibility for implementation of the Court 's orders in regard to petitioner No. 9 squarely rested with respondent No. 6	 the officer in Charge of the Pension Paying office. He	 in his affidavit	 has stated that Dubey was dispossessed from his residential accommodation on 14th August	 1987	 and by then the order of this Court dated 7th August	 1987 had not been received by him. That accommodation was given to one Krishna Bahadur. Later Dubey has been restored to service	 given possession of a similar accommodation as the one from which he was displaced and with a view to giving effect to the spirit of the order of this Court	 the rent which Dubey had paid for private accommodation has been decided to 285 be borne out of Government account. His affidavit explains the delay in implementation thus: A "There has been delay in implementation of the orders of this Hon 'ble Court due to delay in communication	 administrative bottlenecks and for security reasons. It is further stated that we had no intention to flout or disobey the orders of this Hon 'ble Court but for the reasons beyond our control	 the same could not be implemented notwithstanding the fact that we had all intentions to implement the same in the right earnest. The orders have since been implemented	 the petitioner has since been reinstated and also given accommodation. The delay in implementing the same may kindly be condoned and we be excused for such delay for which we have tendered an unconditional apology at the outset of this affidavit. " There is some material which	 if probed into further	 might have established that respondent No. 6 had the notice of the order of this Court before physical dispossession of Dubey was effected. As already noticed	 there is allegation of adoption of an attitude of resentment by respondent No. 6 or for the matter of that the local officers	 when the writ petition was filed in this Court. That backdrop	 as contended by counsel for the petitioners	 perhaps could be taken to supply the motive for the delay in complying with the directions of this Court. We have not considered it expedient to probe into the matter further on account of the fact that there has been compliance and each of the respondents has tendered unqualified apology. We would part with the matter by recording our serious concern and disapproval of the growing conduct of parties and public officers in particular of ignoring the directions of the Courts and the multiplying instances of confrontation. The Court	 including the apex one	 is a part of the State and is a built in mechanism of the Constitution to administer justice in accordance with law. For discharging that duty	 the Court has got to adopt an attitude of critical assessment of situations connected with litigation brought before it for adjudication. The manner of functioning of the Court in accord with the Rule of Law has to be dispassionate	 objective and analytical. The Judges who preside over these courts do not act with a sense of superiority; nor do they look down upon others in the community. In order that the system may efficiently work and the purpose for which the courts are established is duly served	 it is necessary that everyone within the framework of the 286 Rule of Law must accept the system	 render due obedience to orders made and in the event of failure of compliance	 the rod of justice must descend down to punish. We hope and trust that everyone within the system realises this situation and does not unnecessarily get into a confrontation. The apologies tendered by the respondents are accepted and the contempt notice is discharged. Respondent No. 6 is directed to pay to the petitioners the costs of the proceedings which are assessed at Rs.2	000 within one month.

% The Supreme Court issued certain directions in respect of petitioner No. 9 regarding accommodation and reinstatement in service in a writ petition filed on behalf of forty petitioners	 working in Pension Paying officer	 Pokhara	 in Nepal	 praying for directions to the Union of India	 regarding their permanency and other benefits applicable to similar Union Government employees. In the petition for contempt	 it was alleged that these directions were not implemented	 and that consequent to the filing of the writ petition	 the authorities	 especially local officers	 were ill treating the Petitioners. On notice being issued	 affidavit on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 were filed tendering unconditional apology	 and explaining their positions regarding the implementation of the Court 's orders. Respondent No. 6	 who was the officer ln charge of the Pension Paying officer and who was responsible for the implementation of the Court 's orders	 also tendered an unconditional apology and stated	 in his affidavit	 that petitioner No. 9 was dispossessed of the residential accommodation on 14th August	 1987	 by which time the Court 's orders of 7th August	 1987 had not been received by him	 and the accommodation had already been given to another person	 that petitioner No. 9 was later restored to service and given possession of similar accommodation and that the rent paid by the petitioner for the private accommodation will be paid out of Government account	 and requested for condonation 281 of delay in implementing the orders of this Court. Disposing of the Petition	 ^ HELD: This Court records it serious concern and disapproval of the growing conduct of parties and public officers	 in particular	 of ignoring the directions of the Court and the multiplying instances of confrontation. [285F] The Court	 including the apex one is a part of the State and is a built in mechanism of the Constitution to administer justice in accordance with law. For discharging that duty	 the Court has got to adopt an attitude of critical assessment of situations connected with litigation brought before it for adjudication. The manner of functioning of the Court in accord with the Rule of Law has to be dispassionate	 objective and analytical. The Judges who preside over these courts do not act with a sense of superiority; nor do they look down upon others in the community. [285F G] In order that the system may efficiently work and the purpose for which the courts are established is duly served	 it is necessary that everyone within the framework of the Rule of Law must accept the system	 render due obedience to orders made and in the event of failure of compliance	 the rod of justice must descend down to punish. Everyone within the system must realise this situation and should not unnecessarily get into a confrontation. [285H; 286A B] In the instant case	 there is some material which if probed into further	 might have established that respondent No. 6 had notice of the order of this Court before physical dispossession of the petitioner was effected. There is allegation of adoption of an attitude of resentment by respondent No. 6 or for the matter of that the local officers	 when the writ petition was filed in this Court. That backdrop could supply the motive for the delay in complying with the directions of this Court. It is	 however	 not considered expedient to probe further into the matter on account of the fact that there has been compliance and each of the respondents has tendered unqualified apology which is accepted and the contempt notice is discharged. [285D E; 286B]