This is an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 22.4.97 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 259 of 1995. 2. In Civil Rule No. 259 of 1995 filed by the petitioner-Association on behalf of the State Govt pensioners, the petitioner had prayed for a writ of Mandamus on the State respondents to pay Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to Central ^ Govt pensioners and by judgment and order dated 22.4.97, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to pay the State Govt pensioners Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Govt pensioners. In the said judgment and order, the learned Single Judge also found that as on 1.4.95, the State Govt paid Dearness Relief upto 83% whereas the Central Govt paid Dearness Relief upto 125% as on 1.1.95 and there was a a clear gap of 42% between the rate of Dearness Relief that had been paid by the State Govt and the rate of Dearness Relief that had been paid by the Central Govt and directed the respondents to pay the 20% of the unpaid Dearness Relief by 22,6.97 and the balance 22% of the Dearness Relief by 22.8.97. 3. At the hearing of this contempt petition, Mr. DK Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Association, submitted that by the aforesaid judgment and order, the learned Single Judge clearly directed the respondents to pay the State Govt pensioners Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Govt pensioners. Hence, the respondents were not only required to pay the aforesaid Dearness Relief of 42% which became due owing to gap between the rate as paid by the State Govt as on 1.4.95 and the rate as paid by the Central Govt as on 1.1.95, but also were required to pay to the State Govt pensioners Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Govt pensioners from time to time as and when announced by the Central Govt after 1.1.95. Mr. Mr. Biswas further stated that though the aforesaid gap of 42% in the Dearness Relief between the rate as paid by the State Govt as on 1.1.95 has now been taken care of, and the installments as fixed by the Court in the aforesaid judgment and order for payment j of the aforesaid gap of 42% have been paid to the State Govt pensioners, after 1.1.95 the Central Govt has paid further Dearness Relief to its pensioners; but the State Govt of Tripura has not paid the said Dearness Relief to its pensioners. He explained that the object of Dearness Relief is to neutralize the rise in prices of essential commodities and the cost of living, but this object has been frustrated by the respondents by withholding the Dearness Relief on one ground or the other. According to Mr. Biswas, therefore, there was wilful disobedience of the direction of the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22.4.97 to the respondents to pay the State Govt pensioners Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Govt pensioners. 4. Mr. BR Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that by the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 259 of 1995 time limits were fixed only for payment of the two installments towards the dues of Dearness Relief of 42% which was found to be the gap between the rate of Dearness Relief as paid by the State Govt as on 1.4.95 and the rate of Dearness Relief as paid by the Central Govt as on 1.1.95, But by the said judgment no time limit was fixed for payment of Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Govt pensioners after 1.1.95. He further submitted that as to when the State Govt would pay Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Govt pensioners after 1.1.95 is for the State Govt to decide depending upon the financial resources available with the State Govt. In this context, he stated that the present financial position of the State Govt is extremely bad as the financial year 1997-98 has ended with the closing balance of (-) 10.31 crore and the said closing balance of the State Govt at the end of August/98 further deteriorated to (-) 25 crores. In this context, he stated that the present financial position of the State Govt is extremely bad as the financial year 1997-98 has ended with the closing balance of (-) 10.31 crore and the said closing balance of the State Govt at the end of August/98 further deteriorated to (-) 25 crores. He further stated that for meeting its various liabilities, the State Govt had to borrow Rs.217.41 crores during 1998-99 as compared to Rs. 123.71 crores during the previous year 1997-98. He submitted that besides meeting the requirements of development work which is necessary for the poor people of the State of Tripura, the State Govt has to implement the Pay Commission Report which has an annual financial liability of Rs.200 crore. He explained that it is for these reasons that the State Govt has not been able to pay to its pensioners Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Govt pensioners from time to time after 1.1.95. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, therefore, there has been no wilful disobedience of the directions in the judgment and order dated 22.4.97 in the aforesaid Civil Rule No.259 of 1995. 5. On a query being made by the Court as to when the State Govt would be able to pay its pensioners Dearness Relief at the rates applicable to the Central Govt pensioners for the period after 1.1.95, Mr. Bhattacharjee stated that the financial predicament of the State Govt is such that it is not in a position to stipulate the time limit within which such payment can be made to its pensioners. He further submitted that by the judgment and order dated 22.4.97 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No.259 of 1995, no such time limit was fixed and the Court in this contempt proceeding cannot pass an order fixing any time limit for such payment unless it comes to the conclusion that the respondents are guilty of civil contempt because such an order would amount to review of the judgment and order in the said Civil Rule. 6. In Civil Rule No. 257 of 1995, the petitioner Association had prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing the State-respondents to pay Dearness Relief applicable to the Central Govt pensioners. 6. In Civil Rule No. 257 of 1995, the petitioner Association had prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing the State-respondents to pay Dearness Relief applicable to the Central Govt pensioners. This would be evident from para 1 of the judgment and order dated 22.4.97 in the said civil rule and in paragraph 26 of e the said judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court granted the said relief. The relevant portion of paragraph 26 of the judgment is quoted herein below : “..... The petition is allowed and accordingly respondents are directed to pay its pensioners Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Govt pensioners.” In paragraphs 28 and 29 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge has considered the question of payment of dues to the pensioners as per the relief as granted by the Court and has finally directed in paragraph 28 as follows : “.... Therefore, I consider it appropriate that the dues should be paid within a reasonable time and accordingly I order and direct the respondents to pay 20% of the unpaid Dearness Relief out of 42% latest by 22nd June, 1997 minus the amount, if any, is paid towards Dearness Relief during pendency of the writ petition and the balance of 22% of the Dearness Relief by 22nd August, 1997. Keeping in view of the hardship which the pensioners are passing through at this old age I hope that the Govt of Tripura shall not cause delay in clearing up the dues within the time limit I have mentioned above.” It is thus clear that this Court in the said judgment expressly directed the respondents to pay the State Govt pensioners Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Govt pensioners, and so far as the dues of the pensioners towards the Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Govt pensioners as on1.1.95 was concerned, this Court granted reasonable time to pay up the unpaid Dearness Relief of 42% in two instalments, one installment of 20% by 22.6.97 and another instalment of 22% by 22.8.97. Thus, it is not as if the direction of the Court in the said judgment and order to the State Govt was to pay its pensioners a only the 42% gap in the Dearness Relief that was found by the Court not to have been paid by the State Govt There was an express direction by the Court to the respondents to pay the State Govt pensioners Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Govt pensioners. It is, however, true as submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents, that no time has been fixed by the Court within which the respondents were to pay the State Govt pensioners Dearness Relief at the rates applicable to the Central Govt pensioners as and when such relief was announced by the Central Govt after 1.1.95. But when no time limit is fixed by a judgment and order of a Court for complying with the direction given by the Court, the respondents have to comply with the direction within a reasonable time and cannot go on avoiding compliance with the direction of the Court for an unreasonable period of time. What would he the reasonable time within which the authorities have to comply with the direction of the Court, however, will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 7. In the present case, it appears from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the submissions made by Mr. Bhattacharjee that the respondents were under an erroneous impression that they were only required j by the judgment and order dated 22.4.97 to pay the dues towards the unpaid Dearness Relief of 42% which was found to be the gap between the State Govt rates and the Central Govt rates as on 1.4.95/1.1.95 and that by the said judgment and order they were not required to pay Dearness Relief at the rates applicable .to the Central Govt pensioners as and when announced by .the Central Govt after 1.1.95, and that the State Govt had the liberty to pay Dearness Relief to its pensioners at the rates applicable to the Central Govt pensioners as and when it decided depending upon is resources, etc. What the respondents have lost sight of is that by the judgment and order dated 22.4.97, a clear direction was given by the Court to the respondents to pay the State Govt pensioners Dearness Relief at the rates applicable to the Central Govt pensioners and that such payment was to be made within a reasonable time from the dates when the rates applicable/to the Central Govt pensioners were announced by the Central Govt. Once this Court directed the respondents by the said judgment and order dated 22.4.97 to pay Dearness Relief to the pensioners at the rates applicable to the Central Govt pensioners, and the said judgment and order attained-finality, the respondents were under a legal obligation to pay the same to the pensioners unless the relevant rules were amended in the meanwhile. The respondents appeared to have entertained 8 the misconception that the payment of Dearness Relief was to be made to the State Govt pensioners at the rates applicable to the Central Govt pensioners after 1.1.95 at the discretion of the State Govt as and when the State Govt decided depending upon its resources even though there was no amendment to the rules. 8. Non-implementation of the direction of this Court in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22.4.97 in Civil Rule No.259 of 1995 to pay the pensioners of the State Govt Dearness Relief at the rates applicable to the Central Govt pensioners after 1.1.95 is therefore not wilful but due to mistaken interpretation of the said judgment and order of this Court and due to financial constraints faced by the State Govt. In the cases of Makar Dhwaaj Pal vs. Neera Yadav, (1994) 2 SCC 741 and Kashinath Kher vs. Dinesh Kumar Bhagat, (1997) 6 SCC 141 , the Supreme Court, after having found that the non-implementation of the orders of the Court was not deliberate, granted further time to the contemners to implement the Court's order. Considering the financial difficulties faced by the State Govt and at the same time the hardship of the pensioners due to the exorbitant rise in prices, while dropping the contempt proceeding, I allow six months' time from today to the respondents to comply with the direction in the aforesaid judgment and order to pay the State Govt pensioners Dearness Relief at the rates applicable to the Central Govt pensioners as granted after 1.1.95.