ORDER T. Vaiphei, J. 1. This is an application under S. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for drawing up a contempt proceeding against the respondent for wilfully and deliberately violating the Judgment and Order dated 13-1-2003 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 455 of 2002. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this contempt petition may be briefly stated as under:-- The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court for directing the respondents to accept his voluntary retirement with effect from 31-8-2002 and to pay him all the retiral benefits. This Court by the Judgment and Order dated 13-1-2003 disposed of the writ petition by (1) directing the petitioner to deposit his three months' pay and allowances within fifteen days; (2) directing the respondents to issue formal letter of acceptance of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner with effect from 16-9-2002 on receipt of the said amount from the petitioner and (3) directing the respondents to pay all retiral benefits including leave salary for the period from 7-7-2002 to 16-9-2002 to the petitioner within three months from the date of acceptance of the voluntary retirement. It was also ordered that any outstanding dues including the Library Books etc. were to be repaid or refunded by the petitioner. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the petitioner deposited his three months pay and allowances and returned all his outstanding dues including Library Books etc. and submitted the clearance certificate to the State-respondents. Thereupon the respondent herein by the order dated 25-3-2003 allowed the petitioner to proceed on voluntary retirement with effect from 16-9-2002. However, the respondent failed to take any action in respect of the other directions passed by this Court and as a result a series of representations were submitted to the respondent by the petitioner for immediate compliance with the remaining directions. Finally the respondent released a part Of the leave salary and leave encashment, gratuity and provisional pension for six months with effect from 17-9-2002 to 16-3-2003. The petitioner states that he has not been receiving pension from 17-3-2003 onwards. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid acts of commission or omission by the respondent amounts to wilful violation of the order passed by this Court and as such a contempt proceeding be initiated against the respondent for the same. 3. The petitioner states that he has not been receiving pension from 17-3-2003 onwards. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid acts of commission or omission by the respondent amounts to wilful violation of the order passed by this Court and as such a contempt proceeding be initiated against the respondent for the same. 3. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit in answer to the contempt petition in which he states that the petitioner has been paid the leave encashment for 281 days of Earned Leave was disbursed on 9-6-2003. Leave salary for the period from 8-7-2002 to 16-9-2002 was paid on 9-6-2003. Provisional Gratuity was disbursed to him on 16-6-2003 and provisional pension for six months with effect from 17-9-2002 to 16-3-2003 was released to him on 11-7-2003. The respondent further states that following the directions of this Court his voluntary retirement was accepted. The pension proposal was already sent to the Accountant General, Tripura although there was some delay in sending the said proposal but the delay was said to be not intentional which was due to observance of certain formalities. The pension proposal is now pending before the Accountant General, Tripura for which necessary reminder has been sent to the Senior Accounts Officer to expedite the matter. The main contention of the respondent is that he has done everything within his power to comply with the directions of this Court and some delay was inevitable due to the complicated nature of functioning of the administration for which he may not be held liable for contempt. He submits that there is no wilful or deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court. 4. I have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U. B. Saha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. From the pleadings of both the parties, the following admitted position have emerged. Firstly, the letter of acceptance of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner was already issued on 25-3-2003, leave encashment, leave salary, provisional gratuity and provisional pension already disbursed between 9-6-2003 and 11-7-2003. The G. P. Fund amounting to Rs. 7,42,286/- was paid to the petitioner on 25-10-2003. From the pleadings of both the parties, the following admitted position have emerged. Firstly, the letter of acceptance of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner was already issued on 25-3-2003, leave encashment, leave salary, provisional gratuity and provisional pension already disbursed between 9-6-2003 and 11-7-2003. The G. P. Fund amounting to Rs. 7,42,286/- was paid to the petitioner on 25-10-2003. The respondent has categorically stated that the pension proposal was already sent to the Office of the Accountant General, Tripura on 14-7-2003 and that by the letter dated 20-10-2003 (Annexure-R/2), the Senior Accounts Officer of the Office of the Accountant General, Tripura was reminded about the pension proposal and was requested to expedite the release of pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner. It is thus clear from the above that by 14-7-2003 the respondent has already taken all the necessary steps within his power for sending of the pension proposal to the office of the Accountant General, Tripura. 6. It is however, the case of the petitioner that the respondent is the competent authority to release the pension papers and that having failed to comply with all the directions of this Court within three months from the date of the order passed by this Court he has intentionally disobeyed the directions of this Court. He further submits that the order having been passed on 13-1-2003 and that the payment of retiral benefits should have been made within three months from the date of acceptance of the voluntary retirement and as such a case of wilful violation of the order passed by this Court has been made out and the respondent be directed to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of Court. On the other hand, Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent did not leave anything unturned for complying with the directions of this Court and that because of the complicated nature of the functioning of the Government, some delay inevitably occurred for which the respondent cannot be blamed. 7. The question to be determined in this case is whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent has prima facie wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court. It is the settled law that every infraction of the Court's order does not amount to contempt of Court. 7. The question to be determined in this case is whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent has prima facie wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court. It is the settled law that every infraction of the Court's order does not amount to contempt of Court. It is only a wilful and deliberate violation and contumacious conduct which are to be condemned in contempt proceeding. The essential ingredient of a civil contempt is wilful disobedience and not any and every disobedience due to various reasons such as delay due to unavoidable circumstances or inadvertence. That it was 'wilful' has to be proved. In the case reported in (1997) 35 ATC 392 (CAT-Cal), where the default in completion of disciplinary proceeding was due to retirement of dealing assistant and the disciplinary authority had been transferred during the relevant period, it was held that although, technically it did not absolve the respondents, by designation, of their responsibility of pursuing the matter, yet in the complex reality of office organisation and functioning, final disposal of the matter sometimes got delayed, no contempt can be said to have been committed by reason of such delay. 8. On the admitted facts of this case, I may now proceed to examine whether there was wilful disobedience to the order passed by this Court. It is true that there was a delay of about three months in releasing the leave encashment, leave salary, provisional gratuity and provisional pension to the petitioner. It is worth nothing that the respondent is not the sole official involved in processing the payment of aforesaid benefits. He is the head of the department and processing of such matter involves many hands starting from dealing assistant to under Secretary, the Directorate etc. 9. Regard being had of the complex reality of the office organisation and functioning, which inevitably involved time consuming decision making process, it cannot be said that such a delay in finalising the payment of the said retiral benefits would constitute wilful or intentional violation of the order of this Court. It is true that final payment of G.P. Fund could not be made within the time stipulated by this Court but on the facts and circumstances of this case, such delay is inevitable and excusable. It is true that final payment of G.P. Fund could not be made within the time stipulated by this Court but on the facts and circumstances of this case, such delay is inevitable and excusable. In so far as the payment of pension is concerned, Annexure-R/2 shows that the principal in-charge of the B. B. Memorial College, Agartala had already submitted the pension and other retiral benefits proposal to the Office of the Accountant General, Tripura by 14-7-2003 and that reminder for expediting the release of the pensionary benefits was also made therein. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that this Annexure clearly shows that the respondent alone is not the authority for processing the pension papers and on the contrary it shows that it was the Principal in-charge, B. B. Memorial College, Agartala and the Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, who are equally responsible for the release of the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. In any case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that once the pension proposal was submitted to the Office of the Accountant General, Tripura on 14-7-2003, any delay in sanctioning or releasing the said pensionary benefits thereafter cannot be held to be the responsibility of the respondent. He also admitted that there was some delay in sending the pension proposal to the Office of the Accountant General, Tripura, which he said, is due to the requirement to comply with Rules 68, 69 and 74 of the Pension Rules. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. The processing of retiral benefits etc. as stated earlier involved many officials. In this case, the Director of Higher Education, Office of the Principal of the concerned College as well as the Secretariat admittedly are involved in processing the pensionary and other retiral benefits of the petitioner. It is also in evidence that after processing the pensionary and retiral benefits of the petitioner by this office, the matter was again sent to the office of the Accountant General, Tripura to finalise the matter. 11. In view of the above admitted position, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent has not acted wilfully or intentionally in not complying with the directions of this Court within the time stipulated for compliance. 11. In view of the above admitted position, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent has not acted wilfully or intentionally in not complying with the directions of this Court within the time stipulated for compliance. In the result, I hold that there is no prima facie case of wilful or intentional disobedience to the order dated 13-1-2003 passed by this Court. 12. In the view that I have taken, there is no prima facie case for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondent and as such the contempt petition is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed