LALITA DEVI MISHRA Vs. PRIYANSHU KAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application preferred under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity 'the Act') read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the most compassionate as well as an organic and living one, depicts a picture and frescoes a scenario which compels one to ask certain elementary questions "have the authorities in the case at hand, namely, Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Bhopal, Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Bhopal and Block Development Officer, Kotma, District Shahdol, lost their sensitivity to the miseries of helpless, hapless and agonized persons and decisively taken a decision to remain in a constant slumber ? Have they forgotten the age-old saying, if one is lazy, the nectar turns into poison ? Have they absolutely forgotten that one day they would also retire and would be in need of retiral benefits ?" Be it noted when the bad time abounds it can affect one and all. But, as it appears, the authorities, like the present contemners, treat all the persons in difficulty, like the widow of Late Gopika Prasad Mishra, as unpersons, possibly harbouring an idea that when they are in spring they are not to bother about the winter of others. Despite constant reminders by this Court to deal with and dwell upon the matter of retiral benefits in quite promptitude and carry out the orders passed in the cases of this nature with utmost immediacy, it appears that there has been no change whatsoever in their temperament, as if they are determined to nurture their nature to such an extent where one would be compelled and constrained to state that the authorities at seven are also the same at seventy. Their stagnation, their mind set, their perception, their uncared and unbending attitude, their insensitivity and carelessness, as if, have been clearly crystallized.

(2.) THE factual matrix as has been adumbrated is that the petitioner had initially approached the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No. 2844/2001 for issue of appropriate direction to the respondents to make full and final payment of the entire amount which were due to her late husband and grant of interest. After abolition of the Tribunal the matter stood transferred to this Court. This Court expressed the view as under :-

(3.) IT is asseverated in the petition that despite the aforesaid order and inspite of the expiration of the time and further issuance of the direction by the Senior Deputy Accountant General that the matter is to be finalized the respondents whose names find mention earlier have not taken any steps whatsoever. They have adhered to the stance of motionlessness and immobility. In a welfare State the people who are holding public offices have to treat themselves to be accountable and are required to have the conception of serviceability. They cannot afford to feel more important than the citizens. They must bear in mind that every person has a tolerance limit. When the latitude of tolerance gets insufferable, the people like the respondents should realize how small they are. It is always wise to be aware about the still water. Obedience of the Court's order with sanguinity would ostracize the proclivity of laxness. They would cease to be languid and apathetic. But, a fruitful one, if they choose not to act upon the orders passed by the Court they will invite the severity and ire of majesty of law. The authorities should not forget that they have the solemn duty to discharge. Carrying out the order of the Court is a sacrosanct duty. Carelessness and laxity in a case of this nature the family is likely to pave the path of ruination. No authority can afford to have imperfect, brute and impermissible reason. He must understand the order in proper perspective and be guided by the light of reason. In this context I may profitably refer to the saying of Cicero "law is nothing else but right reason, calling us imperiously to our duty, and prohibiting every violation of it. " This was said almost 2500 years back.