Judgment This is a petition for contempt filed by the petitioner alleging non compliance of the direction issued by a Full Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions vide order dated 16th May,2005. The learned Judges of the Full Bench had already decided the question which was referred to it, directing the respondents to take over the services of those workcharged employees for regularization, who were discharging their duties in a permanent/regular establishment but the cases of some other petitioners, which include the petitioner herein, were remitted to the competent authorities with a direction to decide the individual claim of each of the petitioners and communicate the decision within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said judgment and order. This contempt petition was listed earlier on 29.7.2009 when last opportunity was granted to the respondentcontemnor to comply the direction issued in the case of the present petitioner also vide W.P.(S) No.3588 of 2004 in letter and spirit within the time of two months, sought by the counsel for the respondentcontemnor. It is now informed by the counsel representing the respondentcontemnor that the order stands fully complied, which has been accepted by the counsel for the petitioner also . However, the counsel for the petitioner has further endeavored to press this contempt petition on the plea that the amount which has been paid to him by way of arrears of salary is not sufficient or adequate as per his computation. But, this cannot be a reason to entertain the contempt petition, as at the stage of initiation of a contempt proceeding, it is not required to compute the consequential benefit unless there is a specific order or direction to that effect by the Bench passing the order, which is to be complied. It has been repeatedly observed that contempt petitions have an extremely limited scope since contempt would lie only if the party moving the Court for initiating contempt proceeding is able to establish in view of the direction in the order sought to be complied that there has been a wilfull disobedience of the order by violating the specific direction of the Court. Wilfull disobedience of the order obviously will have to be determined in the light of the order, which is sought to be implemented by way of a contempt petition and if in the main order, the specific details including the figure giving out the details of emoluments is not specified, the same cannot be allowed to be contested and computed by way of a contempt petition as the ambit and scope of the contempt petition is not akin to the execution proceeding under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The extent of power to be exercised by the Court in a contempt proceeding is clearly defined and earmarked under the Contempt of Courts Act, if there is clearly a wilfull disobedience of the order for which punishment can be imposed under contempt proceeding but under the garb of the petition for contempt, no order can be passed as if a proceeding for execution of the order sought to be complied is entertained. We thought it necessary to record the aforesaid observations in this regard as time and again we have noticed that either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench, contempt petitions are filed where the ambit and scope of the contempt petition many a times is clearly missed. In view of these observations as also the fact that the order stands complied, no further relief is required in the matter nor a proceeding for contempt is fit to be initiated. The contempt petition, therefore, is dismissed as infructuous as the order already stands complied.