JUDGMENT (1) THIS is a petition for contempt alleging non-compliance of the order dated 18-7-2007 passed in W. P. (S) No. 3623 of 2007, whereby the learned single Judge had been pleased to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation with details of her claim along with a copy of the order passed by the Court before the Vice Chancellor, Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka and it was further observed that if such a representation is filed, the said respondent/Vice Chancellor shall consider the petitioner's claim and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. The learned single Judge observed that if the petitioner is found entitled to get one or the other claim, monetary benefits/arrears thereof must be paid to her within a period of two months thereafter with statutory interest and if the amount is found not to have been paid to the petitioner within the said period, she shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 10% per annum till the payment is made. (2) IT is informed by the counsel for the petitioner that the Vice Chancellor has already disposed of the representation of the petitioner and has held that the petitioner is entitled to UGC scale and since she is entitled to UGC scale, then as per calculation an amount of Rupees nine lacs and odd is payable to her. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no amount has been paid to the petitioner, either by way of gratuity or other retiral benefits, which is refuted by the counsel for the University, who has submitted that the amount which has been claimed by the petitioner is as per the UGC scale but as per the previous scale, she has received the entire retiral benefits. (3) THE petitioner, thus, has sought to claim retiral benefits, as per the UGC scale. (4) THE controversy as to whether the petitioner is entitled for retiral benefits as per the UGC scale or not, cannot be allowed to be raised by way of a petition for contempt. (3) THE petitioner, thus, has sought to claim retiral benefits, as per the UGC scale. (4) THE controversy as to whether the petitioner is entitled for retiral benefits as per the UGC scale or not, cannot be allowed to be raised by way of a petition for contempt. THE petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned single Judge and establish as to how she is entitled to the UGC scale, if the same has not been implemented in regard to all the similarly situated teachers, although it might have been granted selectively to some of the teachers. This may be a fresh cause of action for the petitioner to take recourse to any other alternative remedy, including a fresh writ application where she can establish that she is entitled to her retiral benefits as per the UGC Scale and not merely the previous scale. In any view, this relief cannot be granted to her under the threat of a contempt petition which she has filed. Time and again, it has been reiterated in a catena of orders passed by this Court that a dispute, which has not been resolved or determined by the order which is sought to be complied, cannot be allowed to be adjudicated by way of a petition for contempt as the petition for contempt has an extremely limited scope and that is only to the extent as to whether there has been a disobedience of the order in any manner or not. (5) IN the instant petition, although the petitioner may be having a just cause to claim UGC scale for the reasons to be considered by way of an independent writ petition, the same cannot be allowed to be raised for adjudication by way of a petition for contempt, for the reasons already recorded hereinbefore. (6) THE provisions of a contempt proceeding cannot be allowed to be used by a party as a weapon or a tool to pressurize any party to grant them relief including fresh adjudication by initiating a contempt proceeding, as the provision of contempt proceeding is to impose punishment on a party under the Contempt of Court Act only if a case of wilful disobedience of the order is made out. When the order to be complied itself is not clear enough, so as to offer a cause to the petitioner to allege wilful disobedience of the order, the same cannot be allowed to be raised by way of a petition for contempt. THE petition, thus, has no merit and hence it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.