JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. The instant application is filed by the Petitioners for alleged violation of this Covat's order dated 09.12.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 339 of 2004 whereby and whereunder this Court directed the Respondent, Commissioner/Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur, inter alia, to hold an enquiry as to whether the Petitioners have been really rendering their services as primary teachers and if it is so, they should be paid their pay and allowances. 2. Heard Mr. S. Jayanta, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ng. Jotindro, learned Counsel spearing for the Petitioners, Mr. H.N.K. Singh, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Kh. Babulindro, Advocate appearing for the Respondents 3 and 4 as well as Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2. 3. Before going into the merit of this contempt petition, it would be proper for this Court to discuss about the factual aspect as to how the present contempt petition came up before this Court and as such following factual aspects are discussed briefly: the Petitioners are the ad hoc Primary Teachers. Their services were extended from time to time and the last order of extension is dated 22.05.2000 (Annexure-A/13 to the contempt petition). The Commissioner of Education (School Section), Govt. of Manipur issued an order dated 21.08.01 for abolition of 928 posts of Primary Teachers in the Department of Education (Schools). Against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner dated 21.8.01, the Petitioner filed a writ petition, which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 273 of 2002. This Court, while issuing rule on 28.2.2000, passed an interim order directing the concerned authorities not to oust the Petitioners from their services and to allow them to continue in services with all service benefits. Said writ petition is still pending before this Court, h appears that the pay and allowances of the Petitioners have not been paid by the authorities and in this connection they filed various representations for payment of their pay and allowances with effect from 23.9.2001. But, the authorities have not paid any heed to the representation dated 06.01.04 filed by the Petitioners. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners filed a joint writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 339 of 2004. This writ petition had been disposed of by this Court on 09.12.2005 directing the authorities including the Commissioner of Education (School Section), Govt. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners filed a joint writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 339 of 2004. This writ petition had been disposed of by this Court on 09.12.2005 directing the authorities including the Commissioner of Education (School Section), Govt. of Manipur and the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur to hold an enquiry as to whether or not the Petitioners have been really rendering their services as Primary Teachers in the Department of Education (Schools) and pay their pay and allowances, if they are found serving. The order of this Hon'ble High Court was duly communicated to the authorities in time. 4. The present contempt petition has been filed on the following grounds: (a) that the Petitioners duly and effectively communicated the said judgment and order dated 9.12.05 of the Hon'ble High Court (Annexure-A/17) to the Respondents in time and the same was received by them; (b) that the Respondents deliberately and willfully disobeyed and flouted the said judgment and order dated 09.12.05 of the Hon'ble High Court at their own risk and peril and did not pay the pay and allowances of the Petitioners for the period from 23.3.01 till date; (c) that the Respondents did not maintain the majesty of law and the dignity of the Court; (d) that no courtesy has been shown to the Hon'ble High Court by the Respondents; (e) that if the order of the Court was not obeyed, it would be sad day for democracy: and (f) if the Respondents are not punished, general public lose confidence in the Hon'ble High Court and would lose faith in the administration of justice. 5. The Petitioners pray, amongst others, to direct the Respondents to comply with the judgment and order dated 09.12.05 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 339 of 2004 and to pay the Petitioners the pay and allowances as Primary teachers of the Department of Education (Schools), Manipur w.e.f. 23.9.01 till date forthwith and thereafter to pay them regularly. 6. 5. The Petitioners pray, amongst others, to direct the Respondents to comply with the judgment and order dated 09.12.05 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 339 of 2004 and to pay the Petitioners the pay and allowances as Primary teachers of the Department of Education (Schools), Manipur w.e.f. 23.9.01 till date forthwith and thereafter to pay them regularly. 6. By a single affidavit in-opposition both the Respondents 1 and 2 filed their affidavits in-opposition as the post of Commissioner, Education (School Section) and the Director, Education (S) are held by the same person, namely Shri S. Budhachandra Singh, I.A.S. In the affidavit in-opposition the Respondents 1 and 2, inter alia, stated that prior to his assumption of charge as Commissioner, Education (S)/Director of Education(S), a letter dated 31.8.2006 was issued to all the concerned Head Masters to submit duty certificates of the writ Petitioners through the concerned Zonal Education Officers (ZEO). But, before submission of the duty certificates, he was transferred as Commissioner (Science and Technology) by a Govt. order dated 13.4.07 and as such he could not comply with the Court's order during his period. On his transfer, the Respondent No. 3 took the charge of Secretary, Education on 13.4.07. In the affidavit in-opposition of the latter, i.e. Respondent No. 3, he has stated the reasons for non compliance of the Court's order in time and the reasons for the delay as well. On 31.08.06 the Under Secretary, Govt. of Manipur had written a letter to the Headmasters of those schools in order to submit duty certificate of 12 ad hoc substitute and accordingly duty certificates were submitted to the Director, Education as well as to the Under Secretary, Education (S), Govt. of Manipur by the Z.E.O. concerned on 05.09.06. Moreover, another letter dated 08.09.07 was also submitted by the Addl. Director of Education (S)/Valley to the Secretary, Education (S) for taking necessary action at the Govt. level. After perusal of those documents submitted by the Department, the Under Secretary, Education (s). Govt. of Manipur issued an another order dated 29.01.08 and forwarded to the office of the Department in order to submit factual report regarding the genuineness of the appointment of the Petitioners on ad hoc basis and also the period upto which they rendered their services on ad hoc basis. 7. Govt. of Manipur issued an another order dated 29.01.08 and forwarded to the office of the Department in order to submit factual report regarding the genuineness of the appointment of the Petitioners on ad hoc basis and also the period upto which they rendered their services on ad hoc basis. 7. In pursuance to the letter dated 29.01.08 a letter dated 11.02.08 was sent by the Director, Education (S), Govt. of Manipur to the Z.E.O. Zone-I Education (S), Govt. of Manipur to recall and re-enquire into the matter as to whether Petitioners had been attending and taking classes as primary teacher since 23.09.01 till date. Not only that, the Z.E.O. were again instructed to verify other records maintained in the school and be submitted those enquiry report so that the order dated 09.12.05 passed by the Court could be complied with immediately. Accordingly, the Z.E.O. submitted a letter dated 14.02.08 to the Director Education (S), who forwarded the letter dated 14.02.08 to the Secretary, Education (S), Govt. of Manipur along with the report of the Z.E.O. stating that the Petitioners have been rendering their services and as such the Govt. was requested to issue appropriate order in order to comply with the Court's order dated 09.12.08. 8. Respondent No. 3, Shri S. Sunderlal Singh, IAS, Secretary Education, Govt. of Manipur, in his affidavit in-opposition, tendered his absolute and unconditional apology for the delay in implementation and compliance of the order and direction of this Court and prays for excusing him. He also explained the reasons for the delay in implementation and compliance of the Court's order, particularly in paragraphs 3(c), 3(d) and 3(e) respectively wherein it is stated that while awaiting the detailed report from the Director of Education (S) regarding the genuineness of the appointment of the Petitioners, a Civil Misc. Application No. 49 of 2008, in the said W.P.(C) No. 339 of 2004, had been filed for modification/extension of time or for cancellation of the order dated 09.12.05 pending submission of the enquiry report as regards the genuineness of the appointments of the Petitioners. The said Misc. Case No. 49 of 2008 is still pending before this Court for disposal. 9. The said Misc. Case No. 49 of 2008 is still pending before this Court for disposal. 9. From the letter dated 14.02.08, it appears that the Petitioners have not been rendering their services and the said report was based on the findings of the inquiry made by the Z.E.O., Imphal West, Zone-I, and it is reflected that the Petitioners have neither been attending the schools nor performing their duties. After careful consideration of all the reports submitted by the Director, Education (s), the Govt. issued order dated 14.02.08 to the effect that the Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that the 12 Petitioners are not entitled to their pay and allowances as they have neither attended their schools nor performed their duties. It is also stated that in the course of making verification and enquiry under various authorities including the Screening Committee constituted for verification of the genuineness of a large number of ad hoc teachers, and while awaiting the enquiry report of the Vigilance Department and also in making further enquiries as regards the genuineness of the appointment of the Petitioners and since no conclusive report was made either by the Screening Committee or by the Vigilance Commission, a considerable time was consumed. The order and direction of the Court could be complied with only on 14.2.08 and there was no negligence or latches on the part of the Respondents. 10. Mr. Jayanta, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that from the affidavit-in-oppositions of the Respondents, particularly Respondents 3 and 4 only reasonable person would come to a conclusion that the Respondents have violated the Court's order with an oblique motive just to deprive the Petitioners of their benefits and to frustrate the Court's order. He also contended that this Court, while passing the order dated 09.12.05 directed the Respondents, inter alia, that the Commissioner/Secretary of Education would be the more appropriate authority to hold such enquiry and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner/Secretary Education (S), Govt. of Manipur to hold an enquiry as to whether or not the Petitioners have been rendering their services as Primary teachers and in case they are found continuing to serve then they should be paid their pay and allowances. of Manipur to hold an enquiry as to whether or not the Petitioners have been rendering their services as Primary teachers and in case they are found continuing to serve then they should be paid their pay and allowances. It was also made clear by the Court that the whole exercise should be completed within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of the judgment and order. He further contended that in view of the letter dated 31.8.06 issued by the Under Secretary, Education (School Section) respective Headmasters of the schools had already submitted the duty certificates in favour of the Petitioners through the concerned Z.E.O. of the department, but the authority intentionally did not act on it on the pretext of following the procedural formalities and that way the Respondents wanted to deny the fruits achieved by the Petitioners from this Court's order dated 09.12.05 willfully. Unless this Court takes appropriate action against the Respondents, general public will lose their faith in the Court of law. Therefore, it would be proper for this Court to punish the concerned Respondents and prays for a specific direction for compliance of this Court's order. 11. Mr. H.N.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents 3 and 4, on the other hand, while resisting the submission of Mr. Jayanta, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, contended that though the order of the Court was not complied within the stipulated period, same was ultimately complied with on 14.02.08, copy of which is placed before this Court, though not annexed in the affidavit in-opposition, from which it will be evident that enquiry was not held in time considering that appropriate action needs to be taken after receipt of the report of the Screening Committee which was constituted earlier. And only on submission of the provisional report by the Director, it reveals that the services of these 12 Petitioners were terminated on 22.9.01 by the Govt. and subsequently Govt. suspended the termination order on 4.3.03 in compliance with the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 273 of 2002 and ultimately the services of the Petitioners has not been extended thereafter till date. The Headmasters concerned have reported that the Petitioners have neither been attending the schools nor performing their duties. Mr. H.N.K. learned Sr. and subsequently Govt. suspended the termination order on 4.3.03 in compliance with the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 273 of 2002 and ultimately the services of the Petitioners has not been extended thereafter till date. The Headmasters concerned have reported that the Petitioners have neither been attending the schools nor performing their duties. Mr. H.N.K. learned Sr. Advocate further contended that the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground that Shri R.K. Angousana Singh, who was holding the post of Commissioner/Secretary Education (S), Govt. of Manipur on and from 9.12.05 to 09.05.06, i.e. the stipulated period granted by the Court for compliance with the Court's order, was not made party by the Petitioners willfully. Respondent No. 3 was not holding the post of Commissioner/Secretary Education(S), Govt. of Manipur at the relevant time and when he took the charge of Commissioner/Secretary, this matter came to his notice. He tried his level best to comply with the Court's order, but it was not possible on his part to immediately comply with the Court's order as he had to wait for the reports from the subordinate officers, like the Z.E.O.s and the Director and not only that before passing the final order he had to take permission from the appropriate authority, i.e. Minister concerned being the in-charge of the Department of the Govt. in a democratic set up. He again contended that if such delay for compliance of the Court's order is treated to be violation of the Court's order, then the Respondent No. 3 is tendering his unconditional apology before this Court. When the authority complied with the Court's order even at the belated stage with their own understanding without ill motive or intention, then the action of the authority would not come within the ambit of the provisions of the contempt of Courts' Act. And, in the instant case the Respondent had ultimately complied with the Court's order on 14.2.08 and after issuance of the aforesaid order, question may arise whether the said order is a proper order or a wrong one, whatever may be, after the said order, a new cause of action arises to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. And if the Petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, then they have the right to avail the opportunity of judicial review. And if the Petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, then they have the right to avail the opportunity of judicial review. But, that cannot be considered to be wilful violation of the order. Hence, the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his aforesaid contention, he relied on the decision of this Court in Laishram Surbala Devi v. M.A. Sattar reported in 2007 (4) GLT 214 : (2008) 1 GLR 629; the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 291 particularly paragraph 6 and also paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of Manik Chandrapal v. B.K. Chakraborty 2004 (Supp) GLT 180 and contended that the Respondents are not the only officials in whose control the obedience of direction falls. This Court directed the Commissioner/Secretary to hold enquiry, but for holding enquiry he had to follow certain procedures and norms being the Govt. official and if there is any delay, that delay is not for the Respondent No. 3 as the compliance of the Court's order depends on many other subordinate hands in the Department. In the instant case though there was some delay, Respondents complied with all the acts within their control nor left anything unturned for compliance of the Court's order. There is neither wilful nor deliberate violation of the direction of the Court's order. 12. This Court has given anxious thought to the submission of the learned Counsel of the parties and also considered all the relevant records available before this Court including the order dated 14.2.08. For proper appreciation of the submission of the learned Counsel of the parties and for better understanding of the matter, it would be better to first reproduce the order dated 14.2.08 issued by the Respondent No. 3, Secretary Education (S), Govt. of Manipur and the same is quoted below: Orders by the Governor: Manipur Imphal, the 14th February, 2008 No. 12 (HC)/84/2004-SE(S): Whereas Ms. Achom Brojeshori Devi and 11 Ors. filed W.P.(C) No. 339 of 2004 and the Hon'ble Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 9.12.2005 directing that- ...The Commissioner/Secretary of Education (S), Government of Manipur would be the more appropriate and effective authority to hold such enquiry. Achom Brojeshori Devi and 11 Ors. filed W.P.(C) No. 339 of 2004 and the Hon'ble Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 9.12.2005 directing that- ...The Commissioner/Secretary of Education (S), Government of Manipur would be the more appropriate and effective authority to hold such enquiry. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the Commissioner/Secretary, Education (s), Government of Manipur to hold an enquiry as to whether or not the Petitioners have been really rendering their services as Primary Teachers and in case they have been found continuing to serve as primary teachers they should be paid their pay and allowances for the period they have rendered their serves. Whereas the enquiry was not held in time considering that appropriate action needs to be taken after receiving the report of the Screening Committee which was constituted earlier Whereas the report of the screening Committee was submitted only on 19.03.2007 without any finding on the genuineness of the ad hoc teachers including the Petitioners and also without making any specific recommendation. Whereas the Government instructed the Director of Education (s) to furnish a factual report and also the period upto which they had rendered their service on ad hoc basis and submit a detail report along with his proposal if the appointment of the Petitioners are found genuine. Whereas, the Director of Education (S) submitted a provisional report under his letter No. 2/369/2004-ED(S) dated 14.2.2008 based on the provisional report submitted by the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-1 wherein it is stated that- 3 the provisional Enquiry reveals that the services of these 12 Petitioners were terminated on 22.9.2001 by the Government. Subsequently, the Government suspended the said termination order on 4.3.2003 in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 273 of 2002. The services of the Petitioners has not been extended thereafter till date. Considering the compliancy of the case and non-extension of their services, the Head Masters concerned have reported that the Petitioners have either been not attending the schools and in the case of their attending school, they have not been performing their duties. 4. And, therefore these 12 persons are not in the employees list nor attending schools. Considering the compliancy of the case and non-extension of their services, the Head Masters concerned have reported that the Petitioners have either been not attending the schools and in the case of their attending school, they have not been performing their duties. 4. And, therefore these 12 persons are not in the employees list nor attending schools. In view of the above provisional enquiry report, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that the 12 Petitioners as given below are not entitled to they pay and allowances as they have not attended at their respective schools not performed their duties. SI. Name Name of Writ Petitioners Name of schools where Petitioners are reportedly working 1. Konthoujam Ojit Singh Senjam Khunou L.P. School 2. Chingangbam Nobin Singh Maharabi P. S. 3. Warepam Tilotama Devi Kanto Toluma L.P. School 4. Moiranthem Mani Singh Khurkhul No. 2 PS 5. Gurumayum Sangita Devi Public Girls' P.S. 6. Sinam Manisana Singh Kachikhul Jr. H/S 7. Chandam Indu Singh Awang Leikinthabi L.P. School 8. Thokchom Ranjit Singh Loitang Sandum L.P. School 9. Nameirakpam Ibungo Singh Khamaral PS. 10. AchomBrojeshori Devi Luker P.S. 11. Sarangthem Tomba Singh Akham, L.P. School 12. Khoisnam Chaothoi Singh Manakhul L.P. School. This is issued in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble Court passed on 9.12.2005 W.P.(C) No. 339 of 2004. By Orders and in the name of Governor, (S. Sunderlal Singh) Secretary, Education (S) Government of Manipur. 13. In Laishram Surbala Devi (supra) this Court at paragraphs 9, 10, 12 and 13 held that every violation of the Court's order cannot be treated as contempt unless the said order is violated intentionally or with oblique motive to frustrate the order of the Court or lower down majesty of the Court and complying with the order of the Court with their own understanding without ill motive or intention, such action of the authority would not come within the ambit of contempt. Relevant portion of the said paragraphs 9, 10, 12 and 13 are quoted below: 9. It is also settled position of law that every violation of the Court's order cannot be treated as contempt unless the said order is violated intentionally or with oblique motive to frustrate the order of the Court or lower down majesty of the Court. X X X 10. It is also settled position of law that every violation of the Court's order cannot be treated as contempt unless the said order is violated intentionally or with oblique motive to frustrate the order of the Court or lower down majesty of the Court. X X X 10. The weapon of contempt is only to maintain the dignity of the majesty of law and not to execute the direction or implementing the Court's order for which alternative remedy in law is prescribed. There is also no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Subedar Devassy PV (supra) to the effect that while dealing with an application for contempt, the Court cannot traverse beyond the order and contempt Court cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction. Further, an aggrieved party like the present Petitioner has no right to insist that the Court should exercise such jurisdiction of contempt, as contempt is between the contemnor and the Court - See R.N. Dey and Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanih and Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 400 ). 12. The aforesaid views of this Court get support from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Pradip Kumar Biswas v. Subrata Das and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 573 wherein it is held that "the 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 or dignity of the Courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law. 13. It is also settled position of law that contempt Court cannot convert it as a writ Court as well as the appellate authority of the said writ Court and to see the correctness of the order, contempt Court can only see whether the order of the Court for which contempt petition is filed has been flouted intentionally or not and the delay if any, for compliance is reasonable or not. If the non-compliance and delay for compliance are not intentional then it would not be proper for the contempt Court to initiate any proceeding and punish the Respondents as asked for by the Petitioner. 14. In para 6 in the case of J.S. Parihar (supra) their Lordships of the Apex Court specifically held that: ...It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. 15. For better appreciation of the submission of Mr. H.N.K. Singh, learned Sr. Advocate, paragraph 9 of the Manik Chandra Pal (supra) is reproduced hereunder: 9. Regarding being head of the complex reality of the office organization and functioning, which inevitably involved time consuming decision making processes it cannot be said that such a delay in finalizing 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 GP. 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. Insofar 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 admits 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. 16. Considering the submission of the learned Counsel of the parties and the law reports as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, this Court is of considered opinion that to examine whether contempt is committed or not, what is to be looked into is the ultimate decision/order of the authority in terms of compliance. Mere delay of compliance of Court's order cannot be an inaction of authority. The Court is also supposed to consider that the business of the State is not done by a single officer; rather it involves a complicated process. In a democratic set up, the business is conducted through the agency of a large number of officers and not restricted to a particular officer. That being so, for taking decisions the officers entrusted to look after the Court's order have to be allowed to express their views and suggestions. It is impossible for immediate compliance of order of the Court on his part for various reasons such as due to suggestions given by various officers at different levels and he has also to wait for final decision from the end of the Minister concerned, being the in-charge of the Department of Government in a democratic set up. Court should be sensitive when its order is willfully violated or disobeyed but should not be over sensitive for the delay caused in complying the Court's order. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that every delay of compliance of Court's order will not constitute contempt unless such delay is caused will fully with an ill intention or oblique motive either to defy the Court's order or to frustrate the same. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that every delay of compliance of Court's order will not constitute contempt unless such delay is caused will fully with an ill intention or oblique motive either to defy the Court's order or to frustrate the same. If the Court proceeds against the Government Officials for every non-compliance of Court's order and/or delay in complying its order without ascertaining such reasons behind the veil for noncompliance and/or delayed complying with the order, it would send a wrong message to the society regarding functioning of the judicial institution like the Court and the same will also affect the healthy working of the civil service, public interest or democratic norms. But it does not mean that the Court will over look the action of the members of the civil services or other Government officers or any other authority when they really violate the Court's order with an oblique motive to lower down the majesty of law in a democratic set up, and not only that whenever the Court finds that the members of the civil services or other Government officers or any other authority violates the Court's order only to lower down the majesty of law with an oblique motive to frustrate the Court's order then the Court should check the same with iron hand so that the law of the land can be maintained. More so it is the constitutional obligation of the Government official and/or other authority and/or an individual to comply the Court's order in due time, if such order is not upset by the appellate Court. 17. The Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned that the power to punish for contempt is not intended to be invoked or exercised routinely or mechanically but with circumspection and restrain. The Court should not readily infer an intention that non compliance of the order wherever it is and whatever the reasons for restraining the authority unless such intentional violation of the order is clearly established. The jurisdiction vested in a Court of contempt is not to be invoked unless there is a real prejudice which can be recorded as a substantial violation and disregard of the Court's order with an oblique motive or ill will. 18. The jurisdiction vested in a Court of contempt is not to be invoked unless there is a real prejudice which can be recorded as a substantial violation and disregard of the Court's order with an oblique motive or ill will. 18. In the instant case, it is the admitted position that the officer, who was, at the relevant time of issuance of the order, holding the office of the Secretary, Education (School Section) is not made party in the present contempt petition though the period for compliance of the order had been expired during his tenure. Even if there was any violation as alleged, that was happened during his tenure and not during the tenure of the person who is presently holding the post, i.e. the tenure of the present Respondent. 19. When the parties, in a legal proceeding, fail to understand the judgment and order delivered by a Court, it is the duty of the parties to seek clarification. Without seeking any clarification of the judgment, same is complied according to their own understanding, question arises whether they committed contempt or not. According to humble opinion of this Court, unless it can be clearly established to the Court that they violated Court's order willfully with an oblique motive to frustrate the judgment and order only to lower down the majesty of law, it cannot be said that they committed contempt, but surely they failed to comply the Court's order properly as intended by the Court. More so. as the contempt jurisdiction is discretionary before using such discretion. Court is to sure that its order is flouted by the parties of the proceeding willfully with an oblique motive to defy the Court's order only for the purpose of lowering down the majesty of law in the eye of people. A Court should not take any action even if it thinks that action of the parties apparently deem to be contemptuous unless the Court is double sure that failure of fully or partly compliance with wilful intention and/or with oblique motive, but once it is sure that Court order is violated with wilful intention to lower down the majesty of law, then the Court should not take lenient view, rather Court ought to have viewed the matter seriously. 20. 20. In the instant case, as the Respondents vide order dated 14.2.08 have complied with the order of this Court according to their own understanding in view of the law laid down by their lordships in the case of J.S. Parihar (supra), a fresh cause of action has arisen for seeking redressal in an appropriate forum, i.e. the forum for judicial review, if according to them the said order is not full compliance of the Court's order. At this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, has already expressed in the foregoing paragraphs that the delay, which was caused for compliance of the order, was not intentional and/or with oblique motive to frustate the Court's order and/or lower down the majesty of law and the dignity of the Court, it cannot be said that the Respondents have committed any contempt. Sitting in contempt jurisdiction, this Court is unable to exercise its jurisdiction of judicial review for giving direction to the Respondents to comply with the judgment and order dated 09.12.05 passed by this Court as prayed for by the Petitioner in the contempt petition as the Court of contempt cannot traverse beyond the order in question, more so, contempt Court cannot convert itself to an executing Court as its duty is to see as to whether the alleged contemnors/Respondents violated the Court's order with wilful intention and/or with oblique motive and if so, the Court can pass appropriate order for punishment and if not, its duty is to discharge the alleged contemnor from the charge. In the instant case, as this Court has already held that the alleged contemnor did not violate Court's order with any oblique motive, rather there was only some delay for compliance which is explained. Hence, according to this Court no case of contempt is made out against the Respondents for punishment. Whether the order, which the Respondents allegedly complied with, is correct or not, such issue can only be decided by an executing Court like the Court of judicial review and not by Court of contempt. It is open for the Petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief if they consider that the alleged order of compliance dated 14.2.08 is not passed in accordance with direction of this Court. 21. It is open for the Petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief if they consider that the alleged order of compliance dated 14.2.08 is not passed in accordance with direction of this Court. 21. In the result, this Court holds that no case of contempt is made out against the alleged contemnors/Respondents for proceeding under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the instant contempt petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.