Judgment :- MENON, J. By these proceedings an Upper Division Clerk in the Naval Store Deport of the Southern Naval Command, Cochin seeks to haul up the respondents, the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Naval Command, and the Chief of Naval Staff, for contempt of this Court for the alleged violation of the directions in the judgment Ext. P2 in W.A. No. 671 of 1983. The prayer in this contempt application is extracted below: "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to summon the respondents to appear in person to take appropriate action against them for committing Contempt of Court and award suitable punishment which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case." Ext. P2 judgment in W.A. No. 671/1983 does not contain any direction to the respondents; but only declares that the petitioner is entitled to be placed above his immediate junior in the Lower Division Cadre at the time and when he was sent on deputation with all service benefits an officer on deputation is legally entitled to while on deputation and on return to his parent service. The operative portion of Ext. P2 judgment is extracted below :- "......... Hence in the place of the direction given in the judgment under appeal there will be a declaration that the appellant is entitled to be place above his immediate junior in the L.D. Cadre when he was sent on deputation in the higher cadre in which that junior is now working as otherwise the appellant will lose his seniority because of deputation which cannot happen. It goes without saying that the appellant will be entitled to all services benefits which an officer on deputation is legally entitled while on deputation and on his return from the deputation." It is clear from the judgment extracted above that it is for the concerned authority to decide how the petitioner is to be ranked in the Civil Establishment List consistent with the declaration contained therein. This Court in Ext. P2 judgment has not determined his rank in the Lower Division Cadre as on the date of the his deputation. Exts. P5 and P7 are the orders issued subsequent to the judgment Ext. P2 promoting the petitioner as officiating Upper Division Clerk with effect from 11-4-1972 Ext. This Court in Ext. P2 judgment has not determined his rank in the Lower Division Cadre as on the date of the his deputation. Exts. P5 and P7 are the orders issued subsequent to the judgment Ext. P2 promoting the petitioner as officiating Upper Division Clerk with effect from 11-4-1972 Ext. P8 is a corrigendum to the Civil Establishment List to indicate that the petitioner had been reverted to the Lower Division Cadre at the time of his deputation and before the date on which he was given the notional promotion as U.D. Clerk. 2. According to the learned Additional Standing Counsel from the Central Government appearing on behalf of the respondents, these orders Exts. P5, P7 and P8 have been issued in conformity with the declaration contained in Ext. P2 judgment. Since the judgment Ext. P2 does not determine the petitioner's rank in the lower division cadre, it is not possible to hold in these proceedings that the orders Exts. P5, P7 and P8 are not in accordance with the declaration in Ext. P2. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the fixation of his rank, and the orders issued on that basis, his remedy, we are sure, is not to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents, Contempt proceedings are not a substitute for proceedings for enforcement of private legal rights. The Supreme Court in Amrit Nahata v. Union of India reported in (1985) 3 SCC 382 observed at page 385 : (1986 Cri LJ 806 at Pp. 807-8) : "There is a marked difference between a complaint made by an individual for wrong done to him and a petition moved before this Court inviting the Court to take notice of the fact that its contempt has been committed. The contempt is of the Court and not of the individual. Therefore, S. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 confers power on this Court as well as on the High Court to take suo motu action or on a motion made by amongst other, the Solicitor-Central. It is for the Court to determine whether the act complained of tending to scandalise the Court if viewed with certain severity with a view to the punishing the person would in the larger interest of the society enhance respect for the judicial process, or too sensitive attitude in such matter may even become counter-productive. It is for the Court to determine whether the act complained of tending to scandalise the Court if viewed with certain severity with a view to the punishing the person would in the larger interest of the society enhance respect for the judicial process, or too sensitive attitude in such matter may even become counter-productive. The power to commit for the contempt of court have to be exercised with the greatest caution. Neither too sensitive attitude nor an easy escape from performing the harsh duty would help in maintaining respect and decorum for the judicial process with is essential for establishing a society based on rule of law." The petitioner, being a member of the defence service, expected to maintain a high standard of discipline, should not have ventured to file an application of this kind to haul up the Chief of the Naval Staff and the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief for contempt of court unless he is sure of the grounds. We see no substance or merit in the case sought to be made out in these proceedings. This O.P. is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.