Honble V.S. DAVE, J.—An application purported to be one under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, has been filed with a prayer that the contempt proceedings be initiated and suitable punishment should be awarded to the non-pstitioners one of whom is Secretary to the Government, Department of Co-operative Society, Rajasthan, for not implementing the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by Honble M.C. Jain, the then Chief Justice of this Court and Honble Mr. Justice Farooq Hasan, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3340/1987, in letter and spirit and they showed deliberate disrespect towards the order of this Court. In view of the fact that learned brother Honble M.C. Jain had since been transferred from this Court to Delhi High Court as Chief Justice, this case was marked to this bench by Honble the Chief Justice. 2. Though none has appeared for the petitioner still we have perused the entire record and the relevant law, as the matter of contempt is between the Court and the contemner. 3. The contempt alleged is against the order which was an agreed order and which runs as under:— "Accordingly, in view of the above agreement the directions given by the Tribunal are further modified and the respondents No. 2 & 3 are directed to redetermine the seniority of the petitioners and private respondents in these writ petitions after arriving at the finding of their dates of substantive appointment. The re-determination shall be made within a period of two months. The observations made by the Tribunal would not come in the way of the Government and further as a result of redetermination of seniority. Consequence would automatically follow and the consequential orders may be passed within a period of further two months. These writ petitions are disposed-of with the above observations and directions." 4. The petitioners grievance is that despite aforesaid directions respondents did not re-determine the seniority and inspite of his representations. He submitted that a seniority list was published on 30.07.1990, but the name of the petitioner has not been placed at proper number and this was done mala-fide. His grievance is that Rule 15 (I) of the Absorption of Surplus Personal Rules, 1969, has not been properly read and followed which was to be done, it being the spirit of the order passed by this Court. 5. His grievance is that Rule 15 (I) of the Absorption of Surplus Personal Rules, 1969, has not been properly read and followed which was to be done, it being the spirit of the order passed by this Court. 5. On these allegations, the contempt application was admitted and notice was issued on 28.04.1992. Detailed reply has been filed to the petition on behalf of the respondents denying the facts mentioned in the contempt petition. It is stated in reply that the petitioner has not been denied any right and the judgment dated 17.01.1990, has been implemented in the right perspective and in accordance with the provisions of law. It has been submitted that the respondents have issued the seniority list as was directed on 30.07.1990, and the copy of which was given to the petitioner through Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank, Jaipur, where he was working on deputation. It is submitted that if he has any grievance he can afresh challenge the order but cannot move a contempt application as there is no dis-obedience of the order of this Court. Contemners have also tendered apology and have submitted that they have utmost respect of the order of the Court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contemners and perused the record made available to us. A compromise order was passed by this Court on 17.01.1990, and in terms of the agreement, the re-determination of seniority was ordered to be done within two months. The redetermination was delayed and for that the respondents had tendered their un-conditional apology. They submitted that in following the procedure, time was consumed because number of formalities had to be completed. 7. Their submission is that moment order of this Court was conveyed to them, they started the exercise and looked into relevant laws applicable to petitioners case and using their best judgment, they have issued fresh list in full compliance of the order of this Court. It is submitted that law has been applied as is done in each case and if the interpretation is not correct a fresh cause of action accross which can be challenged in separate proceedings. 8. It is submitted that law has been applied as is done in each case and if the interpretation is not correct a fresh cause of action accross which can be challenged in separate proceedings. 8. A serious questions have come-up for consideration in this case as to whether the proceedings for contempt of Court should be initiated for getting enforcement of an order passed by this Court when dispute is raised about the manaer and the method applied for implementation of the order and whether rowing and fishing enquiries are called for unless there are allegations of mala-fide or deliberate dis-obedience or disrespect are specifically made in contempt application and further whether proceedings can be initiated without foundation having been led in the petition specifically and whether any illegality done in re-determination of a seniority as per honest interpretation of the Rules, can it be adjudicated in the contempt application. 9. Contempt of Court in common parlance is associated with the con duct of a person which tends to bring the authority of Court and administration of law into dis-respect or attempts to interfere with proceedings or pressurize th2 parties to give particular statements or their witnesses during litigation or in any manner lowers the dignity of the Court or the majesty of law. There are two types of contempt; one is "Criminal Contempt" and the another is "Civil Contempt" "Civil Contempt" with which we are concerned in this case has been defined as under — "Civil Contempt":—means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court." Thus, wilful disobedience is the gravemen of a charge for contempt, say is a Civil Contempt. The necessary corollary to this is that if dis obedience is neither calculated to undermine the authority of the Court nor is wilful is not a civil contempt. The expression wilful conotes purposeful and intentional flouting of any order. In other words, mensria is an essential ingredients of the offence of contempt where-ever dis-obedience of the order is alleged in order to see as to whether the contemner is guilty of contempt or not. It is, therefore, to be seen as to whether his intention in deliberately doing of an act or forbiding to do an act ordered by the Court is wilful ? It is, therefore, to be seen as to whether his intention in deliberately doing of an act or forbiding to do an act ordered by the Court is wilful ? In doing so even if he has done in ignorance of law something contrary to the order of the Court, in some circumstances, he may be said to be guilty of contempt but if he has carried-out the order with the best intention in manner he has understood the order and if there is an accidental error in doing so, there is no contempt. It is therefore, the nature of the order passed by the Court and the action done in pursuance of the order has to be looked into carefully. Legal position in this respect has been considered time and again by various Courts. 10. In the case of Bakhtiarpur Bihar Light Rly. Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar (1), the Court considered the question of implementation of an order passed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court observed that a flagrant and wilful disobedience of an order alone can call for the exercise of jurisdiction in contempt and that too when there is no alternative legal remedy available to the aggrieved party which was not less convenient, benefitial and effectual. It was held that contempt jurisdiction should be reserved for what essentially brings the administration of justice into contempt or unduly weakens it as distinguished from a wrong that might be inflicted on a private party, by infringing a decretal order of Court. 11. In the case of Chinnabba Chetty Vs. Changalrava Chetty. (2) It was held that where the matter is one of infringment of a decree or a decretal order embodying rights, as between parties, it is clearly not expedient that contempt jurisdiction should not be invoked and exercised in each essence, as a mode of executing that decree, or merely because other remedies may take time or any more circumlocutoiy in character. The same principle was accepted by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Ramalingam Vs. The same principle was accepted by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of A. Ramalingam Vs. V.V. Mahalingamma Nadar (3) where-in the Court held that essentially, contempt of court is a matter which concerns the administration of justice and the dignity and authority of judicial tribunals; to enable the Court to take such action as it deems expedient to adopt, a party can bring to its notice, facts constituting what may appear to amount to contempt of Court. Essentially, however, it is not aright of a party, to be invoked for the redressal of his grievances. It is not also a mody by which the rights of a party, adjudicated upon by a tribunal can be enforced against another party, only when the facts on the record, ex-facie, support a proceeding in contempt, that it would be in the interest of justice to exercise contempt jurisdiction or to commence to do so. Any detailed enquiry must be left to the Court which had passed the order and which presumably is fully acquainted with the subject matter of its own decree. When the matter relates to infringement of a decree or decretal order embodying rightsas between parties, it is clearly in-expedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction. In essence as a mode of executing that decree or merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. In yet another judgment, in the case of Abdul Razaq Sahib Vs. Mrs. Azizunnisa Begum & ors. (4) the Court held that while it is difficult to rigidly define contempt in a general way contempt of Court may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of law into dis-respector dis-regard or interfere with or prejudice parties to the action or their witnesses during litigation. For an act to amount to contempt punishable under the summary jurisdiction of the High Court, it must fall within the principles of these cases in which power to punish has been decided to exist, the unfalling criterian being whether or not these has been an interference or a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. For an act to amount to contempt punishable under the summary jurisdiction of the High Court, it must fall within the principles of these cases in which power to punish has been decided to exist, the unfalling criterian being whether or not these has been an interference or a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. Contempt jurisdiction is reserved and exercise for what essentially brings the administration of justice into contempt or unduely weakness it, as distinguish from a wrong that might be inflicted on a private Party by infringing a decretal order of the Court. The Court relied on its previous decision and held that mere failure in depositing the amount claimed by the opposite party and ordered to be deposited cannot amount to contempt of Court. Case where the alleged contemner has drawn an order in pursuances of the order of this Court in the best exercise of his own discretion and according to the honest interpretation in accordance with the Rules, which he interpretes if otherwise the intention is not born-out from the order then in such cases, even if there is a dis-obedience, it cannot be said to be a wilful dis-obedience. As there is nothing indicative of the fact that there is either dis-respect shown to the order of the Court or there was an intentional act to floute the order of the Court. In the case of K. Ramdas Shenov Vs. The Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Udipi. (5) where a petition for revoking licence to exhibit films was decided by their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court, the District Magistrate, refused to act on photostat copy of the judgment, unless a certified copy was produced, and also in the case of Babu Ram Gupta Vs. Sudhir Bhasin. (6) 12. In this view of the matter, we are clearly of the opinion that there must be a wilful dis-obedience of the order of this Court. In the instant case, it is clearly born-out that when the fresh order was passed; reference was given to the order of this Court and the order was also exhibited and the re-determina tion was also done in accordance with the Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Subordinate Service Clause (1) Rules, 1955 and Rule 15(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Absorption of Surplus Personnel Rules, 1969. In case, the rules have not been properly followed or there is any factual wrong in the list, the petitioner had the remedy to get it corrected by going into the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, or intimating fresh proceedings in accordance with the law but the order cannot be said to be a wilful dis-obedience of the order of this Court dated 17.01.1990. There is no allegation of malafide or otherwise in the said order and no factual foundation has also been read in this respect. In this view of the matter, the contempt petition is dismissed. 13. Rule is discharged.