JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J. 1. The petitioners have filed this contempt application, praying for initiating the contempt proceedings as against the opposite parties for non- compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 5.4.2004. 2(A). According to the petitioners, they were appointed in the year 1972 as L.D. Assistants. The promotion was given to the employees in U.D./Accounts Clerk as per existing vacancies. However, no promotion was given to the petitioners at the relevant time. They were already in Assistant Grade II when they were given Industrial Scale. Although computer staff were promoted after completion of 6 years of service, the petitioners were given promotion only after 8 years without monetary benefits. Therefore, they approached the High Court and filed writ petition. Ultimately the writ petition was allowed giving the following directions: (i) The petitioners have to be promoted to Input/ Output Clerk and consequently their seniority vis-a-vis Assistant Grade II has to be restored. (ii) The petitioners have to be given promotion with effect from the date when their Juniors as Accountant and Assistant Grade II were given promotion with subsequent consequences. (iii) The petitioner No. 3 Amanullah Khans pay reduction in view of his option to retain the old pay is bad and his pay should not be reduced in terms of office order dated 28.9.1991. (B) In the view of the orders passed by this Court, petitioners approached the opposite parties with representations dated 10.9.2004 and 16.11.2004. (C) On 8.12.2004, the opposite parties issued an office order and distributed to all concerned to the effect that seniority are restored and granted promotion with effect from the date of promotion of their juniors. (D) The service records of the petitioners were placed before Pay Roll Section for preparation of dues, but the subsequent orders that have been passed giving the calculation of dues were not in accordance with the order passed by this Court. Since the calculation was not clear, petitioners made a representation on 8.8.2006 for supplying the copy of calculation, but no particulars of calculation have been given. Therefore, they have filed this contempt application. 3. Since the calculation was not clear, petitioners made a representation on 8.8.2006 for supplying the copy of calculation, but no particulars of calculation have been given. Therefore, they have filed this contempt application. 3. The case of the opposite parties in the show-cause is as follows : (A) Pursuant to the order dated 5.4.2004 passed by this Court, the seniority of the petitioners was restored and they were granted promotion with effect from the date of promotion of their juniors to Assistant Grade II with consequential benefits the office order dated 8.12.2004. In compliance to the said order, separate order has been passed on 8.12.2004 with reference to the pay scale of Shri Amanullah Khan. (B) After the issuance of these orders, in Office Order Nos. 104/2004 and 105/2004 in respect of the petitioners, the Pay Roll Section of the Finance Division/Headquarters was directed to calculate the dues payable to the petitioners and accordingly the Pay Roll Section calculated the amount payable to the petitioners and cheques were prepared. The petitioners were informed to collect the cheques from the office, but none of the petitioners turned up to receive the cheques. The seniority of the petitioners has already been restored with effect from 27.7.1979 in the scale of pay of Rs. 485-803/-; with effect from 13.9.1986 in the scale of pay of Rs. 973-1607/-; and with effect from 31.12.1993 in the scale of pay of Rs. 2500-4300/- respectively. Thus, the order of the High Court has been fully complied with. But despite the intimation regarding the preparation of cheques regarding the bills being kept ready, the petitioners did not incline to receive the consequential benefits. The petitioners are now creating dispute on the consequential benefits which is a fresh cause of action and which does not relate to the order passed by this Court earlier which is the subject-matter of this contempt application and as such no contempt is made out. 4. The petitioners, in reply to the above said contentions in the show-cause, filed a rejoinder giving the details of the calculations in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the rejoinder. 5. I have gone through the affidavits, show-cause and the rejoinder, and I have also heard the counsel for the parties. 6. On perusal of the order dated 8.12.2004, in office order Nos. 5. I have gone through the affidavits, show-cause and the rejoinder, and I have also heard the counsel for the parties. 6. On perusal of the order dated 8.12.2004, in office order Nos. 104/2004 and 105/2004 with reference to the petitioners, it is noticed that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 5.4.2004, the order has been passed giving the seniority to the petitioners and also fixing the pay scale. 7. According to the opposite parties, calculation has been made through the Assistant of the Pay Roll Section and cheques have been prepared. 8. According to the counsel for the petitioners as referred to in his rejoinder, this calculation is wrong in view of the various circulars issued by the department. 9. The specific stand of the opposite parties in their show-cause is that raising a dispute in respect of calculation regarding the consequential benefits cannot be the subject-matter of contempt since it gives a new cause of action. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that the order has not been complied with as consequential benefits with correct calculation have not been given in consonance with the order passed by this Court. 11. In my view, this cannot be gone into in this contempt application. The order passed by the opposite parties dated 8.12.2004 through two office orders No. 104/2004 and 105/2004 in pursuance of the order of this Court would indicate that those office orders have been passed in compliance to the orders passed by this Court. 12. If the consequential benefits have not been calculated in terms of the said order or in terms of the circulars, it is open to the petitioners to challenge the same before an appropriate forum. This Court does not incline to give any opinion on these calculations. Unless it is shown that there is a deliberate disobedience of the Courts order, this Court does not normally hold that there is contempt. So, in the absence of any material to show that there is deliberate violation of the orders passed by this Court, this Court will not hold the opposite parties guilty of contempt. 13. The contempt proceeding is dropped. As mentioned above, it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to challenge either the orders of the authority dated 8.12.2004 or subsequent orders regarding calculation of consequential benefits. This contempt application stands disposed of.