JUDGEMENT Honble Ms. Bakshish Kaur, J (Retd.) Chairman.: Shri Amar Singh, Forest Guard in Wild Life Range, Kufri has filed this Contempt petition under Section 17 of Administrative Tribunals Act read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act for taking appropriate action against he contemners for deliberate defiance of the court orders dated 29.4.1996. 2. A narration of relevant facts is necessary for resolving the controversy as under- The petitioner had filed original application No. 1757 of 1995 seeking accelerated promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger as per Himachal Pradesh Forest Training School Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred as rules). Under the Rules trainees getting the honours certificate are entitled to be given accelerated promotion out of turn by way of one step higher promotion. The petitioner (Sic-petitioners) claim was that he had improved his qualification, therefore, respondents may be directed to promote him. 3. The respondents to the original application in their reply stated that the amendment of rules is under process. Above being the position the original application was disposed of in the manner stated below- "From the reply we do not find any time as to when the rules shall be amended. The factum of amendment is under process as per reply. In the circumstance a reasonable time for doing the needful is needed. In our opinion six months time for affecting such amendment is reasonable, since steps have already been taken in this behalf. In that view of the matter we . allow the application and direct the respondent to affect the requisite amendment in the existing riles in accordance with law and then consider the applicant for accelerated promotion to the post of Dy. Ranger within three months thereafter." 4. The petitioner by way of filing the contempt petition has averred that the respondents-contemners did not take any action in the matter though a specific order was passed in original application on April 29, 1996. They are duty bound to comply with the order. The inaction on the part of the respondents in not complying with the order amounts to contempt, therefore, they may be dealt with strictly in accordance with the law. 5. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed separate reply to the contempt petition. They are duty bound to comply with the order. The inaction on the part of the respondents in not complying with the order amounts to contempt, therefore, they may be dealt with strictly in accordance with the law. 5. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed separate reply to the contempt petition. The consistent stand taken by them is that they hold the orders/directions of the tribunal in highest esteem and can never think of ever disobeying the orders/directions of the Tribunal. Nevertheless they tendered unqualified apology. The points raised by them on merits will be dealt with in the later part of the order. However, respondent No.1 has specifically averred that in case the rules are amended for giving accelerated promotion on the basis of result of Forest Guard Training Course, other Forest Guards sitting at the verge of retirement may not even get promotion. This will result into stagnation and cause heart burning amongst the senior most Forest Guards. Considering all the pros, and cons, it was thought proper not to proceed further with the proposal for amendment in the Rules. 6. We have heard Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sh. H.K. Paual for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Chirag B. Singh learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.4 and 5. 7. Adverting to the order passed in O.A. 17657/1995, copy whereof has been placed on record. No doubt the respondents have averred that the amendment of Rules concerned are under process. Acting on this if the courts issue directions to consider the case of the applicant for accelerated promotion after effecting amendment in the rules but the rules are not amended for certain reasons does it amounts to contempt of courts. 8. The directions having been issued to the respondents to effect the requested amendment in the existing Rules in accordance with the law was given only because the amendment of the Rules was under process. The process had not been completed rather respondent No.1 in his reply has made the position clear for not carrying out the process of amendment of the rules which requires to be reproduced for proper appreciation of the case. The relevant portion of para No. 3 of the reply for facility of the reference is reproduced as under- " It is stated that under the Rules of business of the Govt. The relevant portion of para No. 3 of the reply for facility of the reference is reproduced as under- " It is stated that under the Rules of business of the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh and the Business of the Govt. of H.P. (Allocation) Rules, 1971, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules or the matters in relation to amendment in such rules are framed/amended by the Administrative Department, law Department, Personnel Department Finance Department, H.P. Public Service Commission, Secretaries Committees and finally with the approval of the Cabinet. This involves a very lengthy process and matter requires thorough study at various levels. The matter has been examined at administrative level. It has been felt that there is a large cadre of Forest Guars of 2687 posts and only 797 posts of Deputy Rangers. Due to lesser number of promotional posts in the cadre of Deputy Rangers, the Forest Guards even with longer service do not get promotion in time and a Forest Guard of 28 to 30 years of service get chance of promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger. In case the Recruitment and Promotion Rules are amended for giving accelerated promotion on the basis of result of Forest Guard Training course, other Forest Guards sitting on verge of retirement may not even get promotion. This will result into stagnation and cause heart burning amongst the senior most Forest Guards. H.P. Foresters Association has also represented to the Govt./Department against such amendment for accelerated promotion. Considering all the pros, and cons, it was thought proper not to proceed further with the proposal for amendment in the Recruitment and promotion Rules called as the H.P. Deputy Forest Ranger?, and Forest Guards, Class-111 (Executive section) Recruitment, Promotion and certain conditions of service rules, 1978." 9. The close scrutiny of the above would make it clear that there are so many channels through which the process has to be taken for amendment of the rules and the finality to the rules is given by the Cabinet on its approval. The close scrutiny of the above would make it clear that there are so many channels through which the process has to be taken for amendment of the rules and the finality to the rules is given by the Cabinet on its approval. Thus, where the matter has been examined at administrative level and it was felt that it was a large cadre of 2687 Forest Guards and due to lesser number of promotion cadre in the post of Deputy Ranger, Forest Guards with longer service will not get promotion in time and the Forest Guards of 28 to 30 years of service will get chance of promotion to the post of Deputy Rangers and matter was not processed further for amendment of the rules then we are of the view that the act on the part of respondents does not amount to willful disobedience of the directions of the court. 10. In "Dr. Prodip Kumar Biswas Vrs. Subrata Dass and others, (2004) 4 Supreme Court cases 573," it has been observed that Contempt of Court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions. This jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law and dignity of the courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. 11. It is well settled that the proceedings in the Contempt proceedings are summary but consequences are serious, therefore, weapon of contempt has to be used sparingly above all when there is no deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondents. We do not think it a fit case to take any action against the respondents. Consequently the contempt petition is dismissed, Rule against the respondents. Consequently the contempt petition is dismissed. Rule against the respondents is discharged. -