ORDER S.K. Dubey, J.--1. By this petition under Article 216 of the Constitution of India, the Union of India through Station Commander, Military, Morar, Gwalior and the Commanding Officer, Military Hospital, Morar, Gwalior, make a prayer to punish the non-applicant for disobeying the order of this Court passed in M.P. No. 1271 of 1993, on 23.11.1993 inasmuch as that after allotting the alternative accommodation on 27.11.1993, the non-applicant has not vacated the accommodation occupied by her by 30th November, 1993. Therefore, the non-applicant has disobeyed the order passed by this Court and as such, the order of transfer and posting of the non-applicant stayed till 31st May, 1994, be vacated and the non-applicant be punished for contempt and be directed to move to the place of her posting at Jodhpur. 2. In brief, the circumstances of the case giving rise to the filing of this petition seeking aforesaid direction and initiating the contempt proceedings against the non-applicant for punishing the non-applicant are thus : The non-applicant is an Indian Red Cross Welfare Officer who is attached to .he Military Hospital, Gwalior. On her posting at Gwalior vide Annexure R/VII, dated 22.4.1991, she being a married officer, was allotted House No. 21/1 3rd Lancer Lines, and since then, she was occupying the same on payment of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 71/- per month. According to the applicants, as the said accommodation could be made available only to the officers of the higher rank, non-applicant was asked to vacate the same, but the non-applicant did not vacate, hence while passing an order of eviction, the damage rent was imposed by the applicants at the rate of Rs. 5,210/- per month (Annexure P/5). The non-applicant challenged the said order in appeal (Misc. Civil Appeal No.1 of 1993) before the District Judge, Gwalior. In the said appeal, ex parte stay was also granted. Earlier to these proceedings, the non-applicant received a transfer order on 27.8.1993 to join at Military Hospital, Jodhpur. The non-applicant challenged the said order before this Court in writ jurisdiction. After hearing parties, this Court disposed of the petition (M.P. No. 1271 of 1993) vide order dated 23.11.93 in the following terms: "i/ The operation of the order of transfer passed by respondent No. 1 directing the petitioner to join at Military Hospital, Jodhpur (Order Annexure P/7, dated 27.8.1993) is stayed till 31st May, 1994. After hearing parties, this Court disposed of the petition (M.P. No. 1271 of 1993) vide order dated 23.11.93 in the following terms: "i/ The operation of the order of transfer passed by respondent No. 1 directing the petitioner to join at Military Hospital, Jodhpur (Order Annexure P/7, dated 27.8.1993) is stayed till 31st May, 1994. The petitioner shall continue to work and discharge her duties as Welfare Officer in the present place of posting, i.e. at the Military Hospital, Gwalior. After 31st of May, 1994, the petitioner shall proceed to her place of posting on transfer at Military Hospital, Jodhpur unless otherwise the order Annexure P/7 is modified or changed. That modification or change will be effective only after 31st of May, 1994. ii/ The Station Headquarters will make alternative accommodation available to her according to the petitioner's status. The petitioner shall be charged rent of such accommodation as per rules but not more than the rent which the petitioner was paying for the present quarter. iii/ As no male member resides at Gwalior to look after the family of the petitioner, respondents No. 2 and 3 shall see that the alternative accommodation is allotted to her where the military personnel reside with their families. The petitioner shall shift to the accommodation made available to herby 30th of November, 1993 and shall hand over the vacant possession of the present quarter which the petitioner is occupying. iv/ The petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue her remedy against the charging of damage rent and the petitioner shall also be at liberty to press her appeal against the order of eviction, passed under the Act." 3. After the order of this Court, the applicants, vide Annexure P/2, dated 27.11.1993, in terms of the order of this Court, allotted quarter No. 14/11 3rd Lancer Line, and directed the non-applicant to occupy and vacate the quarter which was allotted to her initially, but the non-applicant did not occupy the said quarter after vacating the quarter initially allotted, stating that the accommodation so allotted is not according to her status as the allotted acommodation is meant for a Junior Commissioned Officer. The non-applicant being an officer, is to be allotted the alternative accommodation as per directions of this Court according to officer's status. As the accommodation was not vacated by the non-applicant, the applicants filed this petition for contempt. 4. The non-applicant being an officer, is to be allotted the alternative accommodation as per directions of this Court according to officer's status. As the accommodation was not vacated by the non-applicant, the applicants filed this petition for contempt. 4. During the pendency of this petition, in appeal filed by the non-applicant under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, against her eviction and charging of penal rent, the application for stay was heard wherein, after hearing the parties, learned District Judge observed that the accommodation which the respondent (non-applicant herein) is presently occupying (No. 21/1 3rd Lancer Line) was allotted to the respondent keeping in view her status as admittedly, her status is that of an officer, which cannot be equated with the Junior Commissioned Officer. Therefore, the applicants (respondents in that appeal) cannot say that by giving the respondent an alternative accommodation in the light of the order of this Court (Annexure P/1), have provided an alternative accommodation of the Junior Commissioned Officer's quarter is only an eye-wash. The District Judge further observed that the applicants will not transgress the limits of "officer's status" while dealing with the appellant and will comply with the order of this Court not only in letter, but in the spirit as well. 5. Shri N.P. Mittal, learned counsel for the applicants, contended that All India Red Cross Society Welfare Officers are not entitled for married accommodation or H.R.A. as would be evident from the letter of the Indian Red Cross Society, dated 12.5.1992 (Annexure P/4). In reference to allotment of married accommodation to IRC Welfare Officers, the Indian Red Cross Society has clearly stated that Welfare Officers are not entitled for married accommodation or H.R.A. though the service is of civilian character, but the welfare officers are given the status of an officer and are provided accommodation in Nursing Officer's messes. In view of that, Director of Hospital Services of Indian Red Cross Society informed the allotment of suitable house to the non-applicant. As this Court directed to allot alternative accommodation, the applicants allotted the house which is meant for a Junior Commissioned Officer who draws much higher salary than the non-applicant. Therefore, it was submitted that the non-applicant be dealt with and punished under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for contempt and the stay order regarding transfer till 31st of May, 1994 be vacated. 6. Therefore, it was submitted that the non-applicant be dealt with and punished under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for contempt and the stay order regarding transfer till 31st of May, 1994 be vacated. 6. On the other hand, Shri H.N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the non-applicant, contended the action of the applicant is malafide. Applicants did not comply with the order of this Court in letter and spirit and allotted alternative accommodation by placing the non-applicant in the status of Junior Commissioned Officers just to degrade the non-applicant in the eyes of other staff members with a malafide intention and with a vengence and with revengeful attitude. Learned counsel submitted that according to the Military Administrative Instructions (for short, MAI), Anneuxre R-1, Indian Red Cross Welfare Officers who are the members of the Indian Red Cross Welfare Service have been given "Officers' Status". According to Rules for allotment of married accommodation to Officers Central Command, Rule (1) (b) clearly lays down that Indian Red Cross Welfare Officers attached to Military Hospital the required rules of these officers will be determined by the Station Commander based on their status and, therefore, the non-applicant, on her posting at Gwalior, was allotted accommodation, House No. 21/1 3rd Lancer Line vide order of the Adm. Commandant, Station Headquarters, Gwalior (Morar), Annexure R/VII and in appeal of the respondent (non-applicant here) against the order of eviction and charging of penal rent after hearing the parties, the appellate Court confirmed the order of stay after holding so. 7. In view of the fact that alternative accommodation has not been allotted to the non-applicant, as directed by this Court, the non-applicant has not committed any contempt nor has disobeyed the order of this Court as she has got full respect for the order of the Court and as and when the accommodation is allotted to her according to her status, she will immediately shift. 8. After hearing counsel, it is not necessary for us to deal with various documents annexed. Admittedly, the non-applicant is an 'Officer' according to the Military Administrative Instructions (MAI 19/74) - Directive on Red Cross Welfare Service in Military Hospitals - MAI 2 is with respect to Status and discipline of Red Cross Welfare Officers, relevant part of which, we extract thus: "2. Admittedly, the non-applicant is an 'Officer' according to the Military Administrative Instructions (MAI 19/74) - Directive on Red Cross Welfare Service in Military Hospitals - MAI 2 is with respect to Status and discipline of Red Cross Welfare Officers, relevant part of which, we extract thus: "2. Status and discipline of Red Cross Welfare officers – (a) Members of the service will be given 'Officers' status' ........" 9. An "officer" under section 3 (xviii) of the Army Act, 1950, is defined thus: "(xviii) "officer" means a person commissioned, gazetted or in pay as an officer in the regular Army, and includes(a) an officer of the Indian Reserve Forces; (b) an officer holding a commission in the Territorial Army granted by the President with designation of rank corresponding to that of an officer of the regular Army who is for the time being subject to this Act; (c) an officer of the Army in India Reserve of Officers who is for the time being subject to this Act; (d) an officer of the Indian Regular Reserve of Officers who is for the time being subject to this Act; (e)*** (f) in relation to a person subject to this Act when serving under such conditions as may be prescribed, an officer of the Navy or Air Forces; but does not include a junior commissioned officer, warrant officer, petty officer or non-commissioned officer;" A reading of the definition clearly shows that under clause (1) of the definition, junior commissioned officer, warrant officer, petty officer or non-commissioner officer are not included. Junior Commissioner Officer is defined under section 3 (xii) which reads as under: "junior commissioned officer" means a person commissioned, gazetted or in pay as a junior commissioner officer in the regular Army or the Indian Reserve Forces, and includes a person holding a junior commission in the Indian Supplementary Reserve Forces or the Tarritorial Army (* * *), who is for the time being subject to this Act;" By reading the two definitions, an officer cannot be equated to the status of Junior Commissioned Officer. Therefore, the contention that a Junior Commissioned Officer gets a higher salary than the non-applicant, an Indian Red Cross Welfare Officer, who cannot be equated in status with that of the Junior Commissioner Officer as MAI has given a higher status equivalent to officer than that of Junior Commissioned Officers and, therefore, privileges as are equivalent to the officers are granted to them. 10. In such circumstances and the fact that the District Judge has also observed so, the non-applicant interpreted the executive instructions and construed the order of this Court in the light of MAI issued did not occupy the quarter later made available to her. The contention that there are no other constructed quarters in-between the two catgories, i.e., the quarter initially allotted to her and then after the order of this Court, made available to her, therefore, the non-applicant was bound to occupy the same, cannot be accepted. Nor, it amounts to disobeying the order of this Court or the conduct of the non-applicant can be said to be contemptuous. The Supreme Court, in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1992 SC 407 ) has observed while accepting the argument of the contemner of placing a correct interpretation on the executive directions, regulations and construing the judgment in the light of the interpretation, that in such a case, it cannot be conclusively said that the respondents have wilfully or deliberately or contemptuously flouted or disobeyed the orders of the Court and, therefore, dropped the proceedings and the present case, in our opinion, is on much more higher footing. 11. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no case made out for proceeding with the contempt against the non-applicant. Consequently, we drop the proceedings and discharge the notice. No costs.