Hon ble LODHA, J.—This writ petition is directed against an order dated 26.9.08 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (in short "the tribunal" hereinafter) in contempt Petition No. 17/08, whereby contempt proceedings have been initiated against the contemnor, appellant no.1 herein for alleged disobedience of order dated 12.8.2000 passed by the learned tribunal in O.A. No.72/99. 2. By the said order, the learned tribunal while giving liberty to the contemnor to comply with the orders of the tribunal within a period of two months and dispensing with his personal presence during the said period, has further ordered that if the order is not complied with within the stipulated period, the contemnor shall remain present in person and further proceedings shall be initiated against him. 3. The brief facts in nutshell are that the respondent no.1, an employee of the petitioner Kendriya Sangathan retired from the service. Prior to joining the services of the petitioner, the respondent no.1 had rendered services as teacher from 19.11.70 to 4.8.78 in the Department of Education Government of Rajasthan. However, while computing the pension and other retiral benefits, his past service rendered with the State Government was not counted by the petitioners on the ground that he had not given any option for counting of past service within the stipulated time i.e. upto 31.12.90. The claim of the respondent no.1 was for counting the past service as aforesaid was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 10.7.98. In these circumstances, the validity of the said order was assailed by the respondent no.1 by way of an original application No.72/99 before the learned tribunal. During the pendency of the original application, the authority concerned passed an order dated 16.5.2000 holding that past services rendered by the respondent no.1 can be counted in Kendriya Vidhyala Sangathan only when the Government of Rajasthan makes payment of pro rata pensionary benefits. However, after due consideration, the original application preferred by the respondent no.1 was allowed b the learned tribunal vide order dated 12.9.2000 holding that whether the State Government agrees to pay pro rata pensionary benefits or not, the respondent no.1 cannot be deprived of the benefit of his past service rendered to pursue the matter with the State Government for payment of pro rata pensionary benefits. Accordingly, the learned tribunal directed the petitioners to count the past service from 19.11.70 to 4.8.78 rendered by the respondent no.1 in the Government of Rajasthan, as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 4. A writ petition No.2491/01 preferred by the petitioners before this court assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 12.9.2000 passed by the learned tribunal was dismissed by a Bench of this count. Thereafter, the special leave petition No.2084/04 preferred by the petitioners assailing the validity of the order passed by this court was also dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.11.07. Suffice it to say that the order dated 12.9.2000 passed by the learned tribunal has attained finality. 5. Since the order passed by the learned tribunal was not complied with by the petitioner ever after dismissal of the SLP by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the respondent no.1 preferred the contempt petition the learned tribunal as aforesaid. In response to the notice issued by the learned tribunal, the petitioners appeared before the learned tribunal through their counsel and filed their counter statement. After considering the rival submissions he learned tribunal being of the opinion that the petitioners are under an obligation to comply with the order disobedience whereof was alleged in the contempt petition, issued the notice and directions to contemnor respondent no.1 as detailed supra. Hence, this petition. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the controversy involved now stands settled by a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in appeal No.1251/08 (K.V. Sangathan & Anr. vs. Raghunandan Bhargava & Ors.) wherein the Hon ble Court has held that "The scheme requires the previous employer (State Government) to accept pension liability for the service in accordance with the procedure laid down in the official memorandum. vs. Raghunandan Bhargava & Ors.) wherein the Hon ble Court has held that "The scheme requires the previous employer (State Government) to accept pension liability for the service in accordance with the procedure laid down in the official memorandum. In view of it, the State of Madhya Pradesh has to work out the pension liability of the State qua first respondent for the period in the State Government in terms of said official memorandum." Accordingly, in the said case, the Hon ble Supreme Court has issued directions in the following terms: "The first respondent will produce all service available with him to the Directorate of Public Education, Stat of Madhya Pradesh with a period of six weeks and appropriate order shall be passed by the State Government quantifying the pro-rata liability and amount should be available to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan within four months there from so that the revised pension shall be paid to the first respondent at the earliest at least after six months. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the directions issued by the tribunal by the order impugned are in violation of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court on the very same issue and it would result into discriminatory treatment amongst the similarly situated employees of Kendriya Vidhayalay Sangathan inasmuch as in all other cases, he previous employer i.e. the State Government concerned has to make pro rata contribution. The learned counsel submitted that the dismissal of the SLP in limine does not furnish any ratio decidendi for being followed and the review judgment shall operate as the law from inception. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matters of "Om Prakash Gargi vs. State of Punjab & Ors." (1996) 11 SCC, 399, "Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. Elephanta Oil & Industries Ltd. Bombay", (2003) 4 SCC, 325 and "M.A. Murthy vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.", (2003) 7 SCC 517. At the same time, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the payment has already been made to the respondent in terms of the order passed by the learned tribunal therefore, the order stands complied with. 8. At the same time, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the payment has already been made to the respondent in terms of the order passed by the learned tribunal therefore, the order stands complied with. 8. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the rejection of SLP by the Hon ble Supreme Court does not constitute a binding precedent. It is also settled law that normally, the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court enunciating the principle of law is applicableto all cases irrespective of the pendency thereof because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Hon ble Supreme Court is the law from very inception. 9. In Raghunandan Bhargava s case (Supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that in terms of the scheme the previous employer (State Government) has to accept the pension liability for the services in accordance with the principles laid down in the official memorandum dated 29.8.84 and 7.2.86 and has to work out the pension liability qua the concerned employee for the period he had worked in the State Government. 10. Even in the present case, while deciding the OA preferred by the respondent vide order dated 12.8.2000, the learned tribunal has nowhere said that the State Government has no liability to contribute pro rata pension for the period the respondent has served the Department of Education Government of Rajasthan. All that the learned tribunal has said that it is for the petitioners hereinto pursue the matter with the State Government of pro rata pensionary benefits and on that account the respondent herein cannot be put to a loss, Moreover, the writ petition preferred against the said order having been dismissed by this court and the SLP preferred against the order of this court having been dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the order passed by the learned tribunal has attained finality and has the binding effect upon the parties to the dispute. Merely because in some other case, some different directions have been issued by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the binding effect of the aforesaid order which has attained finality inter se between the parties, shall not stand obliterated. Merely because in some other case, some different directions have been issued by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the binding effect of the aforesaid order which has attained finality inter se between the parties, shall not stand obliterated. If the petitioners had any grievance with regard to the rejection of the SLP against the order passed by this Court, then, only course open for the petitioners was to prefer an appropriate review petition before the Hon ble Supreme Court. In any case, the petitioners cannot question the validity of the order passed by the tribunal which has attained finality, it the contempt proceeding initiated for willful disobedience of its order. In this regard, reliance maybe placed on a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah (2007) 7 SCC 689 , wherein the Court has categorically held that: "once a direction is issued by a competent court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a court of law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of the rule of law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions could have been issued by the Court. In or judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice." 11. In view of the discussion above, in our considered opinion, the order passed by the learned tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, we consider it appropriate to observe that if the order passed by the learned tribunal disobedience whereof is alleged in the contempt petition stands complied with then, there is no reason as to why the learned tribunal should proceed with the contempt proceedings any further. In this view of the matter, it is expected that the learned tribunal shall consider to drop the contempt proceeding, if the order already stands complied with. 13. In this view of the matter, it is expected that the learned tribunal shall consider to drop the contempt proceeding, if the order already stands complied with. 13. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed with the observations as above. No order as to costs.