Honble CHAUHAN, J. – This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner-applicant on the allegations that the respondents have wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the judgment and order of this Court dated 1.9.94 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2840/1983. (2). The petitioner-applicant stated that he was working as the Assistant Sub- Inspector in the Rajasthan State Police since 1964 and on his own violation, he joined the Border Security Force on 1.3.69. There had been some dispute regarding seniority and consequential reliefs, i.e., dates of consideration for further promotion in the Border Security Force and the applicant filed the said writ petition, which was disposed of and the relevant part of the main judgment reads as under :– ``The petitioner has now contended in this petition that his seniority is liable to be considered as Head Constable from the date he was Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the State Unit as required by rule 8 of the Rules. However, during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has been further promoted. The only question which remains to be agitated upon is the proper fixation of the petitioner at various stages. Interest of justice require that a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondents to fix the petitioner in the service from the date he was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector and Sub-Inspector in the State Unit, with all consequential benefits. Accordingly, the Union of India and the I.G., Border Security Force, New Delhi, is directed to fix the petitioner in the service of Border Security Force, strictly in accordance with the provisions of rule 8 by fixing the seniority in the rank of Head Constable from the date on which he was appointed as ASI and Sub-Inspector in the State from which the unit was embodied in the Border Security Force. (3). In pursuance of the said judgment and order, the respondent passed an order on 31.8.95 contained in Annexure CP.4, by which the applicant was given the rank of Head Constable (RM) with effect from 4.2.69. (3). In pursuance of the said judgment and order, the respondent passed an order on 31.8.95 contained in Annexure CP.4, by which the applicant was given the rank of Head Constable (RM) with effect from 4.2.69. The applicant was aggrieved by the said order and he served upon the respondents a legal notice dated 6.1.96 contained in Annexure CP.5, in which the grievance of the applicant was that as per rule 8(1) of the relevant Rules, the seniority of the applicant requires to be reckoned and fixed with effect from 29.7.64, i.e., from the date of his initial appointment on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Rajasthan State Police. The respondents passed an order on 28.11.96 contained in Annexure CP. 10, by which the applicant was informed that he is given seniority in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (RM) in Border Security Force nationally with effect from 5.2.71 instead of 1.3.73 and it was further clarified in that order that as the seniority is fixed only notionally, he shall not be entitled for any financial benefits. It appears that the applicant further made a representation, which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 6.1.97 contained in Annexure CP.12. Hence this contempt petition. (4). This Court took cognizance by issuing a notice to the respondents on 29.3.97 and in reply to the same the respondents have filed the counter affidavits and further affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. (5). Heard Shri M.S. Singhvi- learned counsel for the petitioner- applicant and Mr. P.P. Choudhary assisted by Mr. S.S. Lal learned counsel for the non-applicants. (6). Mr. Singhvi has vehemently argued that there was a clear mandate to the respondents to fix the seniority of the applicant from the date of his initial appointment in the Rajasthan State Police and that is 29.7.64 and by re-fixing the seniority with effect from 4.2.69, the respondents have committed wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. It is further submitted that by the said order it was, also, implied that the respondents would confer the financial benefits upon the applicant and the arrears would be paid to him and rejecting the claim of financial benefits amounts to flagrant violation of the order of this Court. (7). On the other hand, Mr. P.P. Choudhary has submitted that there is no order/direction of this court to grant financial benefits to the applicant. (7). On the other hand, Mr. P.P. Choudhary has submitted that there is no order/direction of this court to grant financial benefits to the applicant. Moreover, the direction had been to re-fix the seniority of the applicant in accordance with rule 8 of the Circular issued by the Government of India dated 26.5.1973 contained in Annexure CCR. 3 (hereinafter referred as ``the Rules) and the judgment & order of this Court had been complied with in letter and spirit and if there is any grievance to the applicant, the applicant may file a fresh writ petition as the orders passed by the respondents may give a fresh cause of action and contempt petition is not maintainable. (8). I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (9). It is settled law that in a case where the order is passed through mistake, inadvertance or by mis-understanding of the meaning and purport of the order, but unless it is intentional, no charge of contempt can be brought home. In B.K. Kar vs. Honble the Chief Justice and his companion Justices of the Orissa High Court and Anr. (1), the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under :– ``There may perhaps be a case where an order disobeyed could be reasonably construed in two ways and the subordinate court construed it in one of those ways but in a way different from that intended by the superior court. Surely, it cannot be said that disobedience of the order by the subordinate court was contempt of the superior court. There may possibly be a case where disobedience is accidental. If that is so, there would be no contempt. (10). Similarly, in Debabrata Bandopadhyay and Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr. (2), the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under :– ``A question whether there is contempt of court or not is a serious one. The court is both the accuser as well as the Judge of the accusation. It behoves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficul- ties arising from inveterate practices in courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemner must be Punished ..... It behoves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficul- ties arising from inveterate practices in courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemner must be Punished ..... Punishment under the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of ones duty and in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged. (11). The same view had been taken by the Honble Apex Court in : M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (3), Dushyant Somal vs. Sushma Somal (4), Niyaz Mohd. & Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (5) and K.J. Pathare vs. S.J. Pathare (6). (12). Thus, there has to be a clear-cut direction and if there is a wilful disobedience in compliance thereto, a party may lodge the grievance otherwise not. There may be a case where contempt petition may be filed that the judgment and order had been complied with only partially. In such a case the court has to examine: what were the circumstances under which the judgment could not be given effect-to fully. In Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors. (7), this aspect was considered, as the petition was filed that the entire amount, as directed by the Honble Supreme Court, had not been paid to him. The Union of India took the plea that before making the payment to the applicant therein, it was under an obligation to deduct the Income Tax at Source. The Honble Supreme Court rejected the plea of contempt and held that in such a case neither the plea of malafide nor of wilful disobedience can be entertained as the Authority has acted bonafide in compliance of the law in force. It is, also, settled law that if the order is capable of being inter- preted in two different ways, the court should not resort to the contempt proceedings. Moreover, the Court cannot modify the original order in the contempt petition vide State of Raj. & Ors. vs. Mohan Singh (8). (13). In the case of : Manish Gupta and Ors. It is, also, settled law that if the order is capable of being inter- preted in two different ways, the court should not resort to the contempt proceedings. Moreover, the Court cannot modify the original order in the contempt petition vide State of Raj. & Ors. vs. Mohan Singh (8). (13). In the case of : Manish Gupta and Ors. vs. Gurudas Ray (9), the Apex Court observed that where an Authority passes the order in pursuance of the judg- ment of a Court and the order is to be passed in accordance with the Rules holding the field and the party is aggrieved of such an order, it is not permissible for such a party to bring a contempt petition if he is aggrieved of such an order. If the party feels that the order has not been made in accordance with the relevant rules, he may persue the remedy available to him in law for enforcing his rights. (14). In the instant case, it has been the case of the applicant himself, as is evident from paragraph 8 of the judgment that he wanted that his seniority be fixed in accordance with rule 8 of the said Rules. Moreover, the order of this Court is, also, to give seniority in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8. Rule 8(1) (b) and 3(a) and (b) reads as under :– ``8(1) HEAD CONSTABLES (Radio Operators) (a) Should be qualified as Class II Radio Operator in a properly constituted trade test. (b) The seniority in the rank will be reckoned from the continuous date of officiation in that rank. However, those cases where persons of State Police BNs who were holding the rank of ASI (Radio Operators) in the States and who were embodied in the BSF in the rank of HCs (Radio Operators) due to lack of vacancies in the rank of ASI (Radio Operators), their seniority in the rank of HC will reckon from the date on which they were appointed as ASI (Radio Operators) in the State from which the Unit was embodied in the BSF. In case of subsequent promotion after their embodiment, seniority in the higher rank will count from the date of such promotion in the BSF. (c) Seniority of re-employed personnel will be from the date of such re-employment. In case of subsequent promotion after their embodiment, seniority in the higher rank will count from the date of such promotion in the BSF. (c) Seniority of re-employed personnel will be from the date of such re-employment. (iii) RADIO MECHANICS :– (a) Should be qualified as Class III of his Trade in a properly constituted test. (b) (i) The seniority will count from the date of appointment as Grade III Radio Mechanic. (ii) In the case of direct entrant HCS (RM), their seniority will be from the date of their enrollment in that rank. (c) Seniority of re-employed personel will be from the date of re-employment in that rank. (15). On the strength of this, it has been submitted by Shri P.P. Choudhary that by application of Rule 8, the petitioner was entitled to get his seniority of HC (RM) w.e.f. 4.2.1969, i.e. only after qualifying the RM Gr. III course in the State Police, though he was embodied in BSF w.e.f. 1.5.1969. The petitioners case was given due consideration for fixation of his seniority of HC (Operator) from the year 1964, i.e., the date from which he was promoted as ASI (OPR) in the State Police as he was given the above weightage and his name was placed at the top of seniority list of HC (RM) on 4.2.1969. It has been further averred that he is not entitled for any financial benefits as he has been given only the notional promotion as not worked on the promotional post. (16). Whether Rule 8 has properly been applied or not and the applicant is entitled for the financial benefits, are the matters of merit. It is not permissible to review an earlier judgment or order in the contempt petition. In J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Doongar (10), the Honble Supreme Court has held that a review of the earlier judgment is not permissible in the contempt proceedings and the contempt court cannot go into the merit of the case and pass fresh order. If a party is aggrieved that the order passed is not in conformity with the directions, it would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity before an appropriate forum, but it will certainly not fall within the ambit of wilful violation of the order. (17). If a party is aggrieved that the order passed is not in conformity with the directions, it would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity before an appropriate forum, but it will certainly not fall within the ambit of wilful violation of the order. (17). There is no direction for providing the petitioner financial benefits, also, and in absence of such clear direction, it would not be safe to infer that the petitioner was also held entitled for financial benefits under the judgment. (18). Thus, in view of the above, I find no force in the contempt petition. The contempt petition is dismissed. The petitioner- applicant may file a fresh writ peti- tion if he is aggrieved by the said impugned orders and so advised. The parties are left to bear their own costs.