Order The instant application for initiation of contempt proceeding against the opposite party has been filed by the petitioner for the alleged disobedience of the general order and direction dated 29.2.1995 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 2465 of 1995. 2. The petitioner's case is that he has superannuated as a head clerk in the Animal Husbandry office, Central Range, Patna, on 31st January, 1996, but till date he has not been paid post-retiral benefits. It is stated in the contempt petition that since long the petitioner has been harassed inasmuch as he was reverted from the post of Senior Selection grade and against that he filed C.W.J.C. No. 3368 of 1987 which was disposed of and the petitioner was allowed opportunity of hearing before cancellation of promotion order. It is further stated that another writ application was filed being C.W.J.C. No. 2717 of 1994 for quashing the order of cancellation of his promotion. However, the petitioner was given one Time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981 and Second Time bound promotion from 1.4.1986. The petitioner under protest received his salary and made representation before the appropriate authority to restore his earlier promotion allowed to him to Junior Selection Grade, Senior Selection Grade and Super-Time scale with effect from 1.4.1981, 1.5.1981 and 1.5.1989 respectively. The petitioner's further case is that another writ application was filed by Sri Yadunath Verma being C.W.J.C. No. 11686 of 1995. The said writ application was heard and allowed by this Court and the order by which Sri Verma was denied promotion was quashed. The petitioner's further case is that there is no provision under the Act with regard to cancellation of any gradation list after 22 years of its original publication. In spite of that the Director, Animal Husbandry, Bihar, Patna, cancelled the gradation list of the year 1971 and passed order of cancellation of promotion of the petitioner to Junior Selection Grade, Senior Selection Grade and Super-Time scale on the ground that he does not come in the gradation list. In the meantime, the petitioner retired and a writ application was filed being C.WJ.C. No. 6306 of 1996 before this Court for quashing the order dated 5.1.1994 passed by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Bihar, Patna and for other reliefs including payment of postretiral benefits by continuing the benefits of Super-Time Scale with effect from 1.5.1989. In the meantime, the petitioner retired and a writ application was filed being C.WJ.C. No. 6306 of 1996 before this Court for quashing the order dated 5.1.1994 passed by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Bihar, Patna and for other reliefs including payment of postretiral benefits by continuing the benefits of Super-Time Scale with effect from 1.5.1989. However, the petitioner came to know about the general direction issued by this Court by judgment dated 29.2.1996 passed in C.WJ.C. No. 4265 of 1995 (Mostt. Rukmani Devi vs. State of Bihar and others) [reported in 1996 (2) PLJR 348 ]. In terms of the judgment aforesaid, the petitioner has filed a representation claiming retirement benefits, but it is alleged that till date representation of the petitioner has not been disposed of. Hence this contempt petition. 3. From the facts stated in the contempt petition, it is, therefore, evident that the petitioner was denied Junior Selection Grade, Senior Selection Grade and also Super-Time scale. It is further evident that the petitioner then moved this Court in CW.J.C. No. 6306 of 1996 for quashing the order dated 5.1.1994 passed by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Bihar, Patna, and for payment of retiral benefits by taking into consideration the benefits of Super-Time scale with effect from 1.5.1989. Nothing has been said in the contempt petition as to what order was passed in the writ petition. 4. In the light of the aforementioned facts, a question falls for consideration is whether the instant contempt petition for initiation of contempt proceeding against the opposite party for alleged disobedience of general direction passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4265 of 1995 [ 1996 (2) PLJR 348 ] is maintainable. I have come across several cases where the employees directly come to this Court by filing a petition for initiation of a contempt proceeding for the violation of the general order/direction issued in another case, where those persons were not party. I have further found in many cases that although claim for promotion, payment of retirement benefits are seriously disputed but even then taking advantage of the general order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4265 of 1995 [ 1996 (2) PLJR 348 ], those employees have filed contempt petition although there is no direction/order of this Court in their favour. In that view of the matter, whether the instant contempt petition and other petitions for initiation of a contempt proceeding are maintainable. 5. In that view of the matter, whether the instant contempt petition and other petitions for initiation of a contempt proceeding are maintainable. 5. Before answering this question it would be useful to look into the scope and ambit of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 under which all these petitions have been filed. "Contempt of Court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt. Civil Contempt has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which 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 the statutory definition of Civil Contempt involves the existence and proof of the following pre-conditions before a person can be held to have committed Civil Contempt:- (i) there must be a judgment or order or decree or direction or writ or other process of a court, or (ii) the judgment etc. must be of an undertaking given to a court; (iii) there must be disobedience to such judgment etc. for breach of such undertaking; (iv) a disobedience of breach, as the case may be, must be wilful. The expression judgment, decree and order has been defined under the Code of Civil Procedure, but contempt has not been defined under the Code. The High Court, may, however, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issue necessary direction which may be mandatory or prohibitory. Mandatory direction or order requires a person to do an act and a prohibitory order or direction requires a person to refrain from doing any act. It is further manifest from the definition of civil contempt that the disobedience must be wilful. 6. It is well settled that Court should always proceed with the thought that the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt of Court should be most jealously and carefully applied and the power is to be cautiously exercised with greater reluctance and anxiety because of the betterment and welfare of the State and because of the privileges of the Judges are involved. The Court should not be enxious by using the power. The Court should also not be over or hyper sensitive. In the case of Jiwani Kumari Parekh Vs. The Court should not be enxious by using the power. The Court should also not be over or hyper sensitive. In the case of Jiwani Kumari Parekh Vs. Satyabrata Chakravorty, ( 1990 (IV) SCC 737 ) the apex Court held that before a party can be committed for contempt, there must be a wilful, deliberate or reckless disobedience of the orders of the Court. 7. Let us now examine the judgment of this court delivered in C.W.J.C. No.4265 of 1995 [ 1996 (2) PLJR 348 ], on the basis of which the instant case and other cases have been tiled for initiation of contempt proceedings. In that case, the petitioner (Mostt. Rukmini Devi) sought direction to the respondents to pay the family pension which she was entitled after the death of her husband who was working in the services of the State of Bihar. In the judgment the learned Judge of this Court took notice of the fact that several writ applications have been filed by the retired employees or their representative seeking some directions for payment of post-retirement benefits since their retirements dues are not paid by the State Government within the reasonable time. His Lordship was constrained to issue general direction directing the authorities to take appropriate steps for payment of retirement dues. Paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the judgment are worth to be quoted hereinafter : "14. Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, as also considering the large number of pendency of cases in regard to retirement benefits matters in this Court, I am constrained to pass a general order that the concerned government servants or their legal heirs or representatives should raise their claim afresh by filing representation, in which they should give full details of their claim and also full address for communication henceforth before the concerned Heads of Departments, who shall grant receipt in token thereof. The Heads of the respective Departments shall get the entire claim filed before him examined through various concerned authorities including Director, Provident Fund/District Provident Fund Officers and finally dispose them of by a reasoned order dealing with each and every claim separately and shall also issue necessary sanction order/ authority slip for payment of admitted dues with statutory interest as well as the interest as per various Government circulars/decision taken in that regard within a period of two months of the receipt of the claim." "15. It is made clear that the main responsibility for payment of all the admitted dues of the concerned Government servant shall be of the Heads of the concerned Departments. In case of any dispute, in regard to any of the claims, they shall assign reasons for not accepting the same and shall communicate to the concerned government servant/person within the aforesaid time. If any of the formalities, such as filing of the indemnity bond or succession certificates etc. are to be completed by the claimant then they must be communicated much before the expiry of said period, so that the claimant may meet the said requirement and the delay in payment of the legitimate dues is avoided." "16. The Accountant General, Bihar, who is represented by Mrs. Renuka Sharma, learned Standing Counsel is directed to issue necessary authority slip within one month of the receipt of the sanction order from the concerned authority in the State Government." "17. It is further made clear that non-compliance of any part of the aforesaid directions by any of the concerned authorities would constitute contempt of this court and will be seriously viewed. This Court may also consider to award heavy penal interest and costs besides imposition of punishment in the contempt proceeding against the concerned Heads of Departments/Accountant General, Bihar, which shall be realised from their pocket." 8. From bare perusal of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the opinion that the General direction given by his Lordship in his judgment will not apply in all the cases irrespective of the fact that the claim for promotion is seriously disputed or matter with regard to payment of retirement benefits is sub judice in a court of law. From bare perusal of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the opinion that the General direction given by his Lordship in his judgment will not apply in all the cases irrespective of the fact that the claim for promotion is seriously disputed or matter with regard to payment of retirement benefits is sub judice in a court of law. For example, in the instant case, the petitioner himself admitted that he filed C.WJ.C. No. 6306 of 1996 challenging the cancellation of promotion and claiming post-retirement benefits, but nothing has been said about the result of that writ application. However, in the show cause, it has been categorically stated that C.WJ.C. No. 6306 of 1996 is pending before this Court for admission. In that view of the matter, I am of the definite opinion that the petitioner can not and shall not get benefits of general direction/order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4265 of 1995 in which the petitioner was neither a party nor any specific direction was issued to the opposite parties. As noticed above, on the basis of general direction the State of Bihar and its authorities can not be held guilty of contempt of this Court in all the cases. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that no case of contempt is made out and the instant proceeding for contempt can not proceed against the opposite parties for the alleged disobedience of the general order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4263 of 1995 [ 1996 (2) PLJR 348 ]. This case is, accordingly, rejected.