Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. The above contempt petition has been filed praying to punish the respondents for disobeying the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.27855 of 2005, dated 112. 2007. 2. It has become a fashion now to file a contempt petition indiscriminately, immediately after obtaining an order, even for an observation made by the Court, without understanding the ramification of the contempt jurisdiction, in its proper perspective. Here is a case in which this Court on 112. 2007 passed an order, which reads as follows:- "Therefore, the common order of the Tribunal and the impugned order dated 12. 2004 passed by the third respondent are set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Bhavani (2nd petitioner in W.P.No.16099 of 2005) and Saroja (1st petitioner in W.P.No.27855 of 2005) have already attained superannuation on 30.9.2006 and 33. 2007 respectively and Rathinam (petitioner in W.P.No.13142 of 2005) has retired on 31. 2007. The authorities are, therefore, directed to refund the recovered amount to them. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMPs., are closed." 3. When the contempt petition came up before this Court on 7. 2009, it appears the Division Bench directed the petitioners to send a letter to the respondents. Pursuant to the same, a letter dated 17. 2009 has been sent to the respondents for compliance of the order dated 112. 2007. To that letter, immediately a reply has been sent by the respondents on 17. 2009, which reads as follows:- "Kindly refer to your letter/Notice dated 17. 2009 on the above subject. In this connection, it is informed that the representations submitted by Shri V.Rathinam, Mech. Supvr. (retd), Smt.V.R.Saroja, SSK (retd), Miss K.Bhavani, Jr.Clerk (retd) and Shri R.Vincent, Peon (retd) were already forwarded to our Headquarters Office, Kochi along with a copy of Judgment dated 112. 2007 of Honble High Court, Chennai for implementation. This Office is awaiting for orders from the competent authority, Kochi. Soon after the receipt of the instructions/orders from the competent authority, Headquarters Office, Kochi, the withheld amounts from the above-retired employees will be released based on the pronouncement of the final judgment of Honble High Court, Chennai." 4. 2007 of Honble High Court, Chennai for implementation. This Office is awaiting for orders from the competent authority, Kochi. Soon after the receipt of the instructions/orders from the competent authority, Headquarters Office, Kochi, the withheld amounts from the above-retired employees will be released based on the pronouncement of the final judgment of Honble High Court, Chennai." 4. Despite the same, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners very strenuously contended that contempt notice has to be issued to the respondents and they should be punished for contempt. We are afraid, we cannot accept the same. It is trite law that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be used for execution of an order, but has to be used only in a proper case, where the respondents deliberately, wilfully and wantonly flouted the order. The jurisdiction of the contempt has to be invoked sparingly and with caution. 5. Here in this case, a perusal of the letter dated 17. 2009, it is evident that the respondent has taken steps for complying with the direction given by this Court. We do not find that the action of the respondents in not complying even within a shorter period can be regarded as a contumacious act, or deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court. When this legal position is put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he replied that it is unfortunate that the Court is not granting the prayer when the petitioner is having a positive order. Here again, we will have to say that is very unfortunate that counsel has refused to accept the legal position for desperate reasons that the order shall got to be executed at the threat of contempt proceedings and keeping the contempt petition hanging over the head of the respondents. 6. While dealing with the application for contempt, the court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. The Court cannot expand or go beyond the order of the Court. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. (vide Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV, 2006 AIR SCW 342 and K.G. Derasari v. Union of India, 2001 (10) SCC 496 .) 7. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. (vide Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV, 2006 AIR SCW 342 and K.G. Derasari v. Union of India, 2001 (10) SCC 496 .) 7. In the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352 , the Court further explained the contempt jurisdiction as follows: "The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. The power to punish for contempt of court is a special power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained." 8. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained." 8. In yet another case, the Supreme Court, while dealing with an appeal filed by the Government against the refusal of condonation of delay, the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst.Katiji, 1987 (28) ELT 185 , observed thus: "....experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note making, file pushing and passing of the buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant non-grata status." By stating so, the Apex Court observed that in the case of Governmental action some play in joint should be shown, as there are so many procedure to be followed while taking action which is collective in nature. In Governmental action one cannot expect the very same speed with which private person takes decision. 9. In yet another matter in respect of condonation of delay, the apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd., 1988 (38) ELT 739, accepting the explanation given for delay by the Government to the effect that such delay is always beyond the control especially in Government matters as the file has to be routed through several sections of the department, observes that the Government being impersonal takes longer time than the private bodies or the individuals. 10. The observations of the Supreme Court equally applies to the facts of the present case. 11. In the light of the above rulings, and on the facts of the case, we are of the view that the act of the respondents does not in any way amount contumacious act. The contempt petition is closed.