Guman Mal Lodha, J.
1. This is a contempt petition by Bhagwan Singh, whose transfer order was quashed by this Court on 13th March, 1981. The respondents did not comply with that order of this Court, and this contempt petition was filed in Sept., 1981. After the service of the contempt notice, one months' time was taken by the respondents to implement the order of this Court, but, even then it was not complied with.
2. Mr. Purohit appears for the respondents and submitted a copy of the order dated 1st Feb., 1982, in compliance with the order of this Court dated 13th March, 1981.
3. The reasons given for non-compliance are most unsatisfactory and grossly inadequate. The respondents cannot be allowed to take a plea that since they were taking opinion of the law officers or filing appeal before the Division Bench, therefore, they adopted an attitude of indifference without obtaining any stay order.
4. I have already held in Dr. M.R. Goyal v. State of Rajasthan Civil Misc. Contempt Petn. No. 219 of 1979, decided on 7th March, 1980 that the State functionaries cannot disobey the Court order on the pretext of taking opinion from law officers or by filing appeal, unless they obtain stay order from the appellate Court.
5. It is unfortunate that the State functionaries have not become wiser even after my strong observations in Dr. M. R. Goyal's case (supra). The fact that they have taken more than one year to implement the order of this Court, in a simple matter of transfer of the petitioner, who is a very low paid employee, shows that not only the State Government has got scant regard for decisions of this Court, but inhuman approach is made even in cases of poor employee by the functionaries of a welfare State. This type of conduct is most derogatory, reprehensible and objectionable.
6. However, since the order has now been complied with and Mr. Purohit submits all the respondents are repentant and submit their unqualified apology and promise to behave properly in future. I am of the opinion that without deciding individual responsibility, the proceedings should be dropped. With the above observations, the contempt petition having become infructuous in the facts and circumstances of the case, is dismissed.