B. PANIGRAHI,J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been filed under Article 215 of Constitution of India read with provisions of the contempt of Court of 1971 for willful and deliberate disovidence of this Division Benchs order dated 27th August, 1998 in the writ application being W. P. S. T. No. 284 of 1998. These writ petitioners have, inter alia, alleged that they had moved a petition before the State Administrative Tribunal being OA No. 1470 of 1998 for passing a mandate against the alleged contemnors for regularisation of their service. But the learned Administrative Tribunal has directed the respondent No. 2 to dispose of the petitioner's representation by passing a speaking order from the date of communication of the order after giving the representatives of the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. The order so passed shall also be communicated by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioners or their representatives within two weeks from the date of passing of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have again filed a writ petition where this bench passed almost similar order directing the respondent No. 2, Director of Health Services to consider the writ petition as representation and pass final orders. While passing such order the repondents shall also keep in view of the earlier order passed by this Court and also the Tribunal in the matter of absorption of DDT Spray Workers. While passing such final order the respondent No. 2 shall give an opportunity of hearing to the applicants and pass final order by assigning good and sufficient reasons within four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. It was, inter alia, directed to keep 17 post of DDT Spray Workers vacant. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that even though such order was passed and thereafter the Director of Health instead of giving the petitioners an opportunity of being absorbed and/or appointed two hundred outsiders were appointed newly which resulted in deliberate, intentional and wilful violation of the Court's order. ( 3 ) MR. Milan Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has advanced an inexorable plea that the State Government namely the respondent No. 2 had absorbed other DDT Spray Workers by following another Division Bench Judgment of this Court. If that be so, why there should be a departure in so far as the petitioners are concerned? ( 3 ) MR. Milan Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has advanced an inexorable plea that the State Government namely the respondent No. 2 had absorbed other DDT Spray Workers by following another Division Bench Judgment of this Court. If that be so, why there should be a departure in so far as the petitioners are concerned? ( 4 ) THE petitioner in their affidavit-in-reply have stated that the respondent No. 2 only to circumvent the Court's order, laid reliance on certain other Government orders which do not have any application in the present case. It has been further contended that another Division Bench of this Court had passed an order in the following manner where it has been held that :"in the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal correctly directed absorption as against the vacancies as and when they would arise. As far as the condonation of age bar is concerned, the point was not seriously pressed by the learned councel appearing on behalf of the State Authorities. And correctly too in our view, having on this aspect of the matter as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the State Authorities in Birbhum Zilla Parishad and Others v. Nitya Hari Chatterjee and Others reported in 100 CWN page 748 at para 7. " ( 5 ) IN the above Division Bench the other Government orders which the respondent No. 2 relied on have been considered even then, a direction was issued to the respondent No. 1 to absorb the DDT Spray Workers. Being aggrieved by such direction the State Government including the respondent No. 2 seems to have filed a special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was, accordingly, dismissed. In that view of the position Mr. Bhattacharya submits that it is a clear case of violation of Court's order as a reason whereof the respondent No. 2 should be punished. ( 6 ) MR. B. R. Bhattacharya has submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court the matter was considered in depth but the authorities were unable to accommodate the petitioners in deferrance with the Court's order. The respondent No. 1 has also filed the affidavit-in-opposition in the similar vein. Mr. ( 6 ) MR. B. R. Bhattacharya has submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court the matter was considered in depth but the authorities were unable to accommodate the petitioners in deferrance with the Court's order. The respondent No. 1 has also filed the affidavit-in-opposition in the similar vein. Mr. B. R. Bhattacharya has further submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court 17 posts are still vacant but since other casual workers senior to the petitioners have not yet been absorbed, therefore, the respondent No. 2 has directed to prepare a seniority list. According to seniority the petitioners shall be absorbed as and when their term comes. ( 7 ) ON perusal of judgment of other Division Bench where it was held by Justice Ruma Pal (as Her Lordship then was) that the notifications of the Government will not stand as a piller, therefore, the Court directed the respondent No. 2 to absorb the Casual DDT Spray Worker and the said matter stood the test of scrutiny even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the special leave petition filed by the respondents was dismissed. ( 8 ) IT is true that the respondent No. 2 disposed of the representation of the petitioners by directing to prepare a seniority list and accordingly they shall be absorbed as and when their term comes. It is true that the respondent No. 2 could not have ignored earlier directives of the Division Bench judgment, since we had asked the respondent No. 2 to adhere the judgment passed by this Court with regard to the absorption of DDT Spray Workers. But the question arises here that even such representation was wrongly disposed of, does this Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, have power to examine the validity of those points and punish the alleged contemnor for disobidience? In this connection the respondents relied upon a judgment reported in 2000 WBLR Calcutta, page 83 in the case of Aloke Ranjan Patra v. State of West Bengal. The Division Bench on the basis of J. S. Parihar v. Ganpati Dugar case reported in 1996 (6) SCC page 291 held that the order passed by the alleged contemnor on the basis of the direction issued may or may not be in confirmity with the said decision but when such order is passed it would give rise to a fresh cause of action. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that the alleged contemnor should not be exonerated. On the basis of the said judgment we find that the alleged contemnors cannot be punished by invoking Article 215 of the Constitution of India nor can they be held guilty for disobidence of the provisions of Contempts of Courts Act. In case the petitioners or so aggrieved by the respondent No. 2's order, they can file a fresh writ petition by seekins a mandate to absorb the petitioners against 17 vacant posts in the light of the Division Bench judgment in WPST No. 260 of 1998. With the above direction we hereby discharge the rule.