1. Heard Mr. Kh. Binoykumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. N. Surendrajit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 2. This is an application filed under section 11 and 12 of the contempt of courts Act 1971 read with provisions of Contempt of Court's Rule, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating the contempt of court's proceedings against the respondents/contemnors alleging that they have willfully and deliberately violated the orders of this court dated 12.02.2001 passed in W.P(C) No.1442 of 2000 filed by the present petitioner. The operative portion of the order of this court dated 12.2.2001 passed in W.P(C) No.1442 of 2000 reads as follows: “ Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners and to afford other similar benefits which were given to other teachers if the present petitioners are similarly situated with these petitioners in the earlier cases and if they were found eligible for such benefits. This shall be done within a period of three months from today. The petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order to the concerned respondents within a period of five days from to-day. Petition is disposed of. No costs.” 3. The respondent no.4 files affidavit-in-opposition stating that the direction of this court in the order dated 12.2.2001 had been complied with by passing the order being No.2/367/2000-ED(S) Pt.I dated 6th August, 2001 which reads as follows: “GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION(S) ------ O R D E R S Imphal, the 6th August, 2001 No.2/367/2000-ED(S)Pt: Whereas the petitioners, Shri S. Gopal Singh & 13 others filed a writ petition being No.1442 of 2000 before the Hon'ble High Court for, inter alia, payment/grant of selection grade scale of pay to them. And they have obtained an order dated 12.2.2001 of the Hon'ble High Court disposing the said writ case with direction as quoted herein below. And they have obtained an order dated 12.2.2001 of the Hon'ble High Court disposing the said writ case with direction as quoted herein below. “the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners and to afford other similar benefits which were given to other teachers if the present petitioners are similarly situated with these petitioners in the earlier cases and if they were found eligible for such benefits.” And, whereas the ROP Rules, 1966 came into force with effect from 1.4.1964 to 31.12.72 under which only 10% of the total strength of teachers, who had rendered 20 years of their qualifying regular service in the grade, were entitled to selection grade scale of pay. And, whereas on examination of the available documents and particulars as enclosed at Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition the present petitioners are found to have been appointed as teachers during the period ranging from 1954 to 1969. As such, they had not completed 20 years of qualifying service during the period of operation of the ROP Rules, 1966. And, whereas under the provisions of the subsequent ROP Rules 1975 effective from 1.1.1973 to 30.3.82, there was no provision for grant of Selection Grade scale of pay, and under ROP Rules, 1982 effective from 31.3.1982 to 31.12.1985, Selection Grade scale of pay was granted only to Graduate Teachers not to Matriculate/Undermatric trained and Under Graduate Teachers. And, whereas under ROP Rules, 1990 (modified 1991) effective notionally from 1.1.66, 10% of the eligible teachers who have completed 12 years of regular service in the grade of senior scale, which is entitled also after completion of 15 years of regular service in the grade, are granted selection grade scale of pay on the recommendation of a screening Committee constituted in this regard. And, whereas the qualifying years of service for grant of senior scale of pay being effective from 1.1.1986 i.e. the date of enforcement of ROP Rules, 1990, the petitioner except petitioner no.8, 11, and 14 namely P. Ibemnungshi Devi, S. Dhiren Singh and Kh. Kulla Singh, could not have completed 12 years of qualifying service in the grade of senior scale as on 1.1.1998 as they had already retired from service on superannuation before completion of qualifying years as on 1.1.1998. Kulla Singh, could not have completed 12 years of qualifying service in the grade of senior scale as on 1.1.1998 as they had already retired from service on superannuation before completion of qualifying years as on 1.1.1998. And, whereas in view of the above fact and circumstances the present petitioners are not similarly situated with those petitioners/teachers who had been granted Selection Grade scale of pay in compliance with Orders of the Hon'ble Court passed in C.R.No.350/98, C.R.No.354/97 and C.R.No.257/87. Now, therefore, after careful examination and consideration of the recommendation of the Screening Committee and also in compliance with the Orders dated 12..2.2001 of the Hon'ble High Court passed in W.P(C) No.1442 of 2000 and orders dated 30.7.2001 passed in Cont. Case NO.154 of 2001, the undersigned orders that the petitioners except petitioners no.8,11 and 14 namely P. Ibemnungshi Devi, S. Dhiren Singh and Kh. Kulla Singh are not eligible for grant of selection grade scale of pay under ROP Rules, 1966,ROP, 1975,ROP, 1982 and ROP, 1999. It is, further ordered that on the recommendation of the Screening Committee, the following petitioners are granted Selection Grade scale of pay subject to the verification of their Service Books. Sl. Name of petitioner/ Date of Date of Scale of Date of No. teacher and enjoying completion pay of effect of School Sr.scale of 12 yrs selection S.G. In the Sr. grade scale of Scale pay 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 1. P. Ibemnungshi Devi 1.1.1986 1.1.1998 Rs.1640-2900/- 1.1.98 Sorbon Thingel P.S. (Pre-revised) 2. Kh. Kulla Singh 1.1.1986 1.1.1998 -do- 1.1.98 Khumbong P.S. 3. S. Dhiren Singh 1.1.1986 1.1.1998 Rs.2000-3500/ - 1.1.98 H/G (Retd) City PS (pre-revised) Sd/- (A. Shamungou Singh) Director of Education(S) Govt.of Manipur.” 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that under the letter of the respondent no.4 dated 15.6.2001 requested him to let the petitioners furnish their service books for consideration of grant of selection grade scale of pay by the screening committee to be held shortly for compliance with different court orders including the order of this court dated 12.2.2001 passed in W.P(C) No.1442/2001, a copy of which is available at Annexure-B/1 in the contempt petition. In reply to the said letter of the respondent no.4 dated 15.6.2001, his junior had already written a letter dated 14.8.2001 informing that the service books of his clients, i.e. the writ petitioners, were available with the respondent no.4. In reply to the said letter of the respondent no.4 dated 15.6.2001, his junior had already written a letter dated 14.8.2001 informing that the service books of his clients, i.e. the writ petitioners, were available with the respondent no.4. Such being the situation, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the so called compliance order dated 6.8.2001 is contradictory to the said letter of the respondent no.4 dated 15.6.2001. He also, further, submits that in the so called compliance order dated 6.8.2001 even a whisper is not made about the consideration of he service books of the some of the petitioners. Such being the situation the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order dated 6.8.2001 is not tenable under the law. This court is of the considered view that the legality or otherwise of the compliance order dated 6.8.2001 cannot be looked into in the contempt proceedings. The remedy is left open to the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 6.8.2001 issued by the respondent no.4 by filing a writ petition. 5. For the reasons discussed above, this contempt petition is closed.