Judgment D.MURUGESAN, J. 1. This contempt appeal is directed against the order dated 19.1.2012 passed in Contempt Petition No.161 of 2010. 2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present contempt appeal are as follows. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), a Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, is having its oil and natural gas exploration and exploitation sites, both on-shore and off-shore, at various places all over the country. The Corporation was having in its employment the regular posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators, Marine Radio Operators, Marine Radio Officers, Senior Marine Radio Officers for manning the radio network and communication equipment at drill sites. The Corporation also engaged the services of "Radio Operators", as contract labour, through certain private independent contractors. The respondents were initially engaged by the Corporation to work as 'Radio Operators' in the Cauvery and Krishna Godhavari Project through private contractors on and from the year 1986. 3. While they were functioning as such, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, issued a notification dated 8.9.1994, prohibiting the employment of contract labour in various works in the establishment of the Corporation, which included the work of Radio Operators also. Hence, the respondents filed writ petitions being W.P.Nos.15211 of 1991 and 1178 of 1996, in this Court seeking for a direction to the Corporation to treat them on par with the regular "Marine Assistant Radio Operators" and extend the scale of pay and other benefits as given to the Marine Assistant Radio Operators on the ground that their qualification and experience are no less than the Marine Assistant Radio Operators and further the nature of work was also the same. The said writ petitions were allowed in view of the notification dated 8.9.1994 issued by the Central Government and also in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Ltd. v. United Labour Union and others (1997) 7 SCC 377. The said order was challenged in W.A.Nos.389 and 398 of 1997 by the Corporation and a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.7.1997, dismissed the writ appeals. The said order was challenged in W.A.Nos.389 and 398 of 1997 by the Corporation and a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.7.1997, dismissed the writ appeals. Thereafter, a Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Supreme Court and the same was disposed of by order dated 12.1.98 in the following manner:- "Mr.V.R.Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that those of the 56 workmen who are found to be qualified in terms of the appropriate regulations, as in force at the relevant time, shall be absorbed as contemplated by the judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation & ors. vs. United Labour Union & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 377. In view of this statement the SLP does not survive and is disposed of." 4. The respondents were thereafter absorbed as "Junior Helpers" vide the communication of the Corporation dated 2.4.98 with effect from 29.1.97 and their pay was fixed at Rs.2,282/- at old basic bottom of Class IV employees of the Corporation and they were posted at Karaikal and Rajamundry stations. The respondents filed a contempt petition before the Supreme Court alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 12.1.98. However, the same was withdrawn with liberty to move the High Court for appropriate relief. In the meantime, the one-man Committee appointed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to look into the grievance of the respondents also submitted its detailed report recommending that the respondents should be absorbed in the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operator with effect from 8.9.1994 in the then prevailing pay scale of Rs.595-20-755-25-930-1140. But the Corporation did not implement the recommendations of the Committee. The grievance of the respondents is that in the light of the recommendations made by the Committee and also in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Ltd., they are entitled to be absorbed as "Marine Assistant Radio Operators" at the top of Class III cadre with effect from 8.9.1994, instead of as "Junior Helpers" with the pay as Rs.2,282/-at old basic bottom of Class IV, which is seven steps below in the unskilled cadre of employees of the Corporation. Thereafter, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, by their letter dated 4.6.1999, also recommended that all the Radio Operators who were having the certificate of proficiency as prescribed in the R&P Regulations, 1980, may be absorbed by the ONGC in the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operator in the pay scale corresponding to Rs.595-20-755-25-9 30-30-1140 with effect from 8.9.1994. The recommendations of the Committee read as follows:- "Having regard to the facts and analysis of the case as brought out in the foregoing paragraph it is my considered view that ONGC is bound to absorb all the Radio Operators who were having the Certificate of Proficiency as prescribed in the R&P Regulations, 1980 with effect from 8.9.1994, the date of prohibition of employment of contract labour in the category of Radio Operator. R&P Regulations, 1980 is the appropriate regulation to decide about the category and scale in which they should be absorbed because these were the contract employment. Accordingly, it is recommended that all the employees may be absorbed by ONGC in the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operator with effect from 8-9-1994 in the Pay Scale corresponding to Rs.595-20-755-25-930-30-1140 as applicable on 8.9.1994." 5. As the Corporation failed to give effect to these recommendations, the respondents were constrained to file W.P.No.21518 of 2000 seeking for a direction to the Corporation to absorb them as Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect from 8.9.1994 on the basis of the abolition of contract labour and as per the recommendations dated 4.6.1999 of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India and the approval of the competent authority as communicated in the fax dated 23.9.1999 with all monetary and all other attendant benefits. After hearing the rival contentions, by order dated 2.8.2006, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition as prayed for. The relevant paragraphs of the order read as follows:- "32. After hearing the rival contentions, by order dated 2.8.2006, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition as prayed for. The relevant paragraphs of the order read as follows:- "32. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the report of the committee, recommendation made by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation case, cited supra, I am of the considered view that the absorption of the petitioners by the respondent corporation as Junior Helpers with the pay of Rs.2,282/- old basic bottom of Class IV cadre was not fair and proper and certainly not in strict compliance of the undertaking given by the respondent corporation before the Supreme Court. On the other hand, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to be absorbed as Marine Assistant Radio Operators. 33. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners as Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect from 8-9-1994 on the basis of the abolition of contract labour and as per the recommendations dated 4-6-1999 of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, to the first respondent and the approval of the competent authority as communicated in the fax dated 23-9-1999 to the third and fourth respondents with all monetary benefits and all other attendant benefits. If for any reason, there is no cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operator or there are no sufficient posts are available in the cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operators to accommodate all the petitioners, the respondents are directed to give "pay protection" to the petitioners and sanction them the scale of pay as applicable to the Marine Assistant Radio Operators as recommended by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas." 6. Aggrieved by the above order, the Corporation preferred Writ Appeal No.1290 of 2006 challenging the order in the writ petition on very many grounds. After hearing the respective submissions, the Division Bench by order dated 19.12.2006 affirmed the order of the learned Judge and dismissed the writ appeal with a direction to the Corporation to implement the order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 7. After hearing the respective submissions, the Division Bench by order dated 19.12.2006 affirmed the order of the learned Judge and dismissed the writ appeal with a direction to the Corporation to implement the order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 7. In the meantime, two other similarly placed workmen filed W.P.Nos.27500 and 27529 of 2006 seeking for a direction to the Corporation to extend the benefits granted by this Court to the petitioners in W.P.No.21518 of 2000 to them also and the said writ petitions were allowed on 4.4.2007 following the order of the Division Bench. Challenging the order of the Division Bench, the Corporation filed Civil Appeal No.765 of 2008 before the Supreme Court and the same was tagged along with the connected Civil Appeal Nos.766 & 767 of 2008 and Transfer Petition (Civil) No.889 of 2007 filed by similarly placed persons from Rajamundry, Andhra Pradesh. Ultimately, the Supreme Court by order dated 30.10.2009 dismissed the civil appeals with the following directions:- "We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have taken us to various documents and pleadings. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion, no case has been made out for our interference under our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, as prayed for by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, we direct the appellant Oil & Natural Gas Commission to implement the orders within three months. In view of our order passed in the Civil Appeals above mentioned, no orders are necessary in the transfer petition. The transfer petition is disposed of." 8. As the order of this Court dated 4.4.2007 in W.P.Nos.27500 and 27529 of 2006 was not implemented, the petitioners therein filed Contempt Petition Nos.141 and 343 of 2010 respectively seeking to punish the officials of the Corporation for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. By order dated 31.8.2010, the learned Judge dismissed the Contempt Petition Nos.141 and 343 of 2010 holding that no contempt was made out warranting an action against the respondent. By order dated 31.8.2010, the learned Judge dismissed the Contempt Petition Nos.141 and 343 of 2010 holding that no contempt was made out warranting an action against the respondent. In the meantime, similarly situated persons from Rajamundry also filed Contempt Petiition (Civil) No.130 of 2010 before the Supreme Court seeking to punish the officials of the Corporation for wilful disobedience of the order dated 30.10.2009. By order dated 28.3.2011, the Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petition with the following observations:- "Learned Attorney General for India appearing for the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation submits that an affidavit dated 9th March, 2011 has been filed by Shri Pradeep K. Hatwal, presently functioning as D.G.M.H.R.(R&P), on behalf of the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation. We have carefully considered this affidavit. We are clearly of the opinion that in view of the said affidavit nothing further survives in this contempt petition as the respondent has agreed to give to the petitioners benefits in terms of the said affidavit. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. In view of the order passed in the contempt petition above, no orders are necessary in I.A.No.4 which is accordingly disposed of." The operative portion of the affidavit dated 9.3.2011 filed before the Supreme Court reads as follows:- "7. I say that even as on date there is no vacancy in the post of Assistant Marine Radio Operator (Southern Region). However, since the petitioners herein have sought to be treated at par with the respondents in Civll Appeal No.765 of 2008, Respondent No.1 is prepared to, in order to give a quietus to the matter extend to the petitoners the same treatment and benefits aforesaid extended to the respondents in Civil Appeal No.765 of 2008 with effect from the date of their absorption i.e.with effect from 18.2.1998, as has been prayed for by the petitioners in the Writ Petition filed by them in the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh." 9. Simultaneously, the respondents also filed Contempt Petition No.161 of 2010 seeking to punish the officials of the Corporation for wilful disobedience of the order dated 2.8.2006 in W.P.No.21518 of 2000. Simultaneously, the respondents also filed Contempt Petition No.161 of 2010 seeking to punish the officials of the Corporation for wilful disobedience of the order dated 2.8.2006 in W.P.No.21518 of 2000. The respondents also took out Sub Application No.236 of 2011 in Contempt Petition No.161 of 2010 to implead the incumbent Chairman & Managing Director Shri A.K.Hazarika as one of the contemnors, since the first contemnor Shri R.S.Sharma, Chairman & Managing Director retired from service on 31.1.2011 and the second contemnor Shri A.K.Balyan left the organisation. By order dated 1.4.2011, this Court ordered the sub application and impleaded the said Shri A.K.Hazarika as one of the contemnors. By order dated 19.1.2012, after considering the rival submissions, the learned Judge ordered the contempt petition and the relevant paragraphs of the order read as follows:- "26. This court is quite aware that the powers conferred under the Contempt of Courts Act be exercised cautiously and sparingly. But, when there is ample material on record to show that the contemners have wilfully disobeyed the orders and further committed breach of the undertakings given before Courts of law, such contemners should not be allowed to go scot-free, as it will send wrong signals to the society, particularly the common man who repose high confidence in the judiciary as a last hope. 27. Considering all the pros and cons of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the respondents 1 and 2 have wilfully and wantonly disobeyed the order of this Court and have acted totally with an intention to cause injury to the petitioners, presumably for the reason that they have invoked legal proceedings against the respondent Corporation. However, the third respondent, who is a new incumbent of the respondent Corporation, cannot be punished for the civil contempt committed by his predecessor-in-office. 28. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are found guilty of the offence of committing wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 2.8.2006 made in W.P.No.21518 of 2000. However, taking into consideration the fact that the first respondent has retired on 31.1.2011, after attaining the age of superannuation and further considering the fact that the second respondent has acted only under the instructions and directions of the first respondent, both the respondents 1 and 2 are let off with admonition. The third respondent is exonerated of these contempt charges. 29. The third respondent is exonerated of these contempt charges. 29. We are also informed that by this time, the third respondent has also demitted the office and one Mr.Sudhir Vasudeva is functioning at present as the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent Corporation. Therefore, the said Officer is directed to strictly implement the orders of this Court dated 2.8.2006 made in W.P.No.21518 of 2000, in its true letter and spirit, by absorbing the petitioners as Marine Assistant Radio Operators, even by creating supernumerary posts in that cadre and grant them all consequential benefits, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This contempt petition is ordered accordingly. No costs." As against the said order, the present contempt appeal has been filed. 10. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants raised the following contentions:- i. When contempt petitions were filed alleging wilful disobedience of similar orders passed by another learned Judge, this Court negatived the contention and held that there was no wilful disobedience of the order. However, by the order under appeal, the learned Judge has erroneously held that the appellants have committed wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 2.8.2006. ii. In any case, though the directions are to absorb the writ petitioners in the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect from 8.9.94 with all monetary and attendant benefits, an option has been given to the Corporation to the effect that in the event the above direction could not be complied with for want of posts in the cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operators to accommodate all of them, they are only entitled to "pay protection". Hence, the directions were understood by the officers in such a manner that pay protection alone has been ordered. Accordingly, they were all absorbed in supernumerary posts as Junior Helpers with pay protection on par with the Marine Assistant Radio Operators and since the order has been complied with, no contempt would lie. iii. When a similar issue came up for consideration before the Andhra Pradesh High Court based upon the Division Bench order of this Court, transfer application came to be filed before the Supreme Court since the Supreme Court was seized of the matter. iii. When a similar issue came up for consideration before the Andhra Pradesh High Court based upon the Division Bench order of this Court, transfer application came to be filed before the Supreme Court since the Supreme Court was seized of the matter. After the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the order of the Division Bench, a contempt petition was also filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment. When the matter was heard, an affidavit dated 9.3.2011 sworn to by Shri Pradeep K.Hatwal, Deputy General Manager (HR), ONGC was filed to the effect that the benefits would be extended to the similarly siutated persons who had approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Recording the said affidavit, the Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petition. When the Supreme Court did not even find the failure on the part of the ONGC to absorb the writ petitioners in the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operator as a disobedience, as there was no such direction in this regard and only an option had been given, the finding of the learned Judge that the appellants have disobeyed the order of this Court is liable to be set aside. iv. The learned Judge has erred in directing the incumbent Chairman and Managing Director of ONGC to absorb the respondents as Marine Assistant Radio Operators by creating supernumerary posts in that cadre, which was beyond the order passed in the writ petition and such a direction cannot be issued in a contempt proceeding. 11. On the other hand, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the appellants have been held guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court only by the learned Judge who passed the order in the writ petition. Hence, the appellants cannot take advantage of the fact that a similar challenge has been negatived by the other learned Judge. That apart, the matter pending before the Supreme Court was concerning the workmen of Rajamundry, who approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the respondents/writ petitioners were not parties to the said petition, and therefore the judgment of the Supreme Court is not in respect of the writ petitioners. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge was right in holding that the appellants have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge was right in holding that the appellants have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court. In any event, the learned senior counsel has submitted that inasmuch as no punishment has been imposed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, no appeal under Section 19 is maintainable. Therefore, the contempt appeal is not maintainable. Insofar as the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the learned Judge erred in directing the incumbent Chairman and Managing Director of ONGC to implement the order is concerned, the learned senior counsel submitted that there is no additional direction given by the Court and it was only a clarification of the direction already issued. 12. A preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the contempt appeal has been raised by Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel for the respondents on the ground that as no punishment has been imposed on the appellants under Section 12, no appeal would lie under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view of the said submission, we are inclined to consider firstly the said issue. A similar issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (DMJ) was a party, in S.C.Sekar and another v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders' Welfare Association rep.by it Secretary and another, 2008 (5) CTC 769. In that case a contempt petition was filed alleging wilful disobedience of the interim order of the Court by convening the Annual General Meeting of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank to elect the Board of Directors. The learned Judge in exercise of contempt jurisdiction passed an interim order restraining implementation of the resolutions until the disposal of the contempt proceedings. The appellants claiming to have been elected in the meetings sought leave to file a contempt appeal by contending that the interim order was subsequently vacated and the Court appointed an election officer to conduct the election of directors and pursuant to the said direction only, the Annual General Meeting was convened, the elections were conducted and the Board of Directors were elected. Therefore, it was contended that in the contempt proceedings, an order of injunction restraining the implementation of the resolutions should not have been passed and hence, the elected directors were thus prejudiced. Therefore, it was contended that in the contempt proceedings, an order of injunction restraining the implementation of the resolutions should not have been passed and hence, the elected directors were thus prejudiced. The Division Bench, while considering the respective contentions and also the provisions of Sections 12 and 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, ultimately held that in case of any order having been passed adversely affecting any person, such person would be entitled to prefer an appeal, as otherwise he would be left with no remedy only to visit with such adverse orders. The Court also held that the provisions of appeal under Section 19(1) cannot be restricted only to a case of punishment imposed by the Court in contempt proceedings and such right of appeal shall also be extended where an order adversely affecting the party had been passed. In fact, the relevant paragraphs of the order of the Division Bench read as follows:- "14. The next question that falls for our consideration is as to whether the appellants are entitled to file the present contempt appeals. In this context, it would be relevant to point out that this Court in exercise of its power under Section 12 is entitled to punish the contemnor and in such event, the person who visited with such punishment is entitled as a matter of right to prefer an appeal under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act. In terms of section 19 of the Act, an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. To our mind, the said section contains two parts. Firstly, an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court and secondly, such order or decision must be in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. It need not necessarily, therefore, mean that only in such cases where this Court punishes the contemnor, an appeal would lie and not when some adverse order is passed. If that interpretation is given to the said provision, the first limb of the said provision regarding the right to appeal against any order or decision of the Court would lose its full meaning. If that interpretation is given to the said provision, the first limb of the said provision regarding the right to appeal against any order or decision of the Court would lose its full meaning. Any order or decision passed by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction to punish the contemnor would mean the exercise of jurisdiction and the corresponding order or decision. In our opinion, even in case of any order passed adversely affecting any person, certainly he would be entitled to prefer an appeal, as otherwise he would be left with no effective remedy and only to visit with such adverse orders. 19. There has been no difficulty that the application of sub-section (1) of Section 19 to cases where the appeal is from an order imposing punishment under section 12 of the Act. But when the Court had not imposed punishment under section 12 and yet some adverse interlocutory orders are passed in the course of contempt proceedings, whether the parties aggrieved by such order would be entitled to invoke the appellate jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act itself. In Purshotam Dass Goel v. Justice B.S.Dhillon reported in (1978) 2 SCC 370 , the Apex Court broadened the area of appealability of an order which decided some bone of contentions raised before the Court affecting the rights of the party aggrieved-whether made at the filing stage of the proceedings or even at an early stage. In fact the Court had observed that it was neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of the type of orders which may be appealable under section 19. The said view was again reiterated by the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Mario Cabrele Sa reported in AIR 1982 SC 691 . In our considered view, the provisions of appeal under the section 19(1) cannot be restricted only to a case of punishment imposed by the Court in contempt proceedings and such right of appeal shall also be extended where an order adversely affecting the parties are passed. In our considered view, the provisions of appeal under the section 19(1) cannot be restricted only to a case of punishment imposed by the Court in contempt proceedings and such right of appeal shall also be extended where an order adversely affecting the parties are passed. Considering the facts of this case, as the decision or order was made by this Court only in exercise of the contempt proceedings, the person aggrieved would be only entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and need not necessarily be relegated to the other provisions, particularly, intra-court appeal." 13. The above order was taken on appeal before the Supreme Court in Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C.Sekar and others, (2009) 2 SCC 784 and the order of the Division Bench was confirmed. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Supreme Court read as follows:- "37. Indisputably in view of the interim order dated 20th June, 2008 respondents were prejudiced. They were, thus, `persons aggrieved'. As persons aggrieved they could move the higher court. If an interim order was passed wholly without jurisdiction, an appeal would lie thereagainst. 45. Assuming that an appeal under Section 19 was technically not maintainable, having regard to the fact that the interim injunction was granted till disposal of the contempt application, in our opinion, it was a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Madras High Court." 14. In this case, factually, though the appellants 2 & 3 have been found guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 2.8.2006 in W.P.No.21518 of 2000, they were let off with admonition. In this context, we may refer to the observations of the learned Judge in more than one paragraph of the order that the appellants 2 & 3 have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court and the said observations read thus: "25......... In this context, we may refer to the observations of the learned Judge in more than one paragraph of the order that the appellants 2 & 3 have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court and the said observations read thus: "25......... When there is ample opportunity for the respondents 1 and 2 to absorb the petitioners as Marine Assistant Radio Operators, as directed by this Court, even by creating supernumerary posts, the respondents 1 and 2 have wilfully acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the petitioners and towards nullifying the order of this Court, since by posting the petitioners as supernumerary helpers, they have denied the due of the petitioners ordered by this Court. Therefore, there is clear intentional disobedience of the order of this Court by the respondents 1 and 2 personally....... 26......But, when there is ample material on record to show that the contemners have wilfully disobeyed the orders and further committed breach of the undertakings given before Courts of Law, such contemners should not be allowed to go scot-free, as it will send wrong signals to the society, particularly the common man, who repose high confidence in the judiciary as a last hope. 27. Considering all the pros and cons of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the respondents 1 and 2 have wilfully and wantonly disobeyed the order of this Court and have acted totally with an intention to cause injury to the petitioners, presumably for the reason that they have invoked legal proceedings against the respondent Corporation..... 28. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are found guilty of the offence of committing wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 2.8.2006 made in W.P.No.21518 of 2000. However, taking into consideration the fact that the first respondent has retired on 31.1.2011, after attaining the age of superannuation and further considering the fact that the second respondent has acted only under the instructions and directions of the first respondent, both the respondents 1 and 2 are let off with admonition. However, taking into consideration the fact that the first respondent has retired on 31.1.2011, after attaining the age of superannuation and further considering the fact that the second respondent has acted only under the instructions and directions of the first respondent, both the respondents 1 and 2 are let off with admonition. The third respondent is exonerated of these contempt charges." In the above circumstances, as there are findings adversely affecting the appellants 2 & 3, which would go a long way in their career and may also result in entering in their service records, they will be justified in invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act to question the above findings. The learned Judge has ordered the admonition only after holding the appellants 2 & 3 guilty of contempt. Hence, in our view, admonition with adverse findings would amount to a punishment and therefore the appeal at their instance is maintainable. So far as the appellant no.4 is concerned, he was exonerated of the charges. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel has submitted that since the appellant no.4 has been exonerated, he is not pressing the appeal against him. The said submission is recorded. So far as the appellant no.1 is concerned, being the Chairman and Managing Director of ONGC, he has been directed to implement the order of this Court in letter and spirit and therefore the appeal at his instance is also maintainable. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the contempt appeal is maintainable and answer the issue accordingly. 15. This takes us to the contention as to whether the appellants have committed wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. It is the contention of Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the appellants that when similar applications for contempt came up for hearing before the other learned Judge alleging wilful disobedience of the order having been passed following the order in issue, the learned Judge did not accept the contention of the writ petitioners therein and refused to proceed with the contempt proceedings. In such circumstances, the finding of the learned Judge holding the appellants 2 & 3 guilty of contempt of Court in a similar matter is erroneous. We are not inclined to accept the said submission as the learned Judge, who passed the order under appeal, was the author of the order in the writ petition giving certain directions. In such circumstances, the finding of the learned Judge holding the appellants 2 & 3 guilty of contempt of Court in a similar matter is erroneous. We are not inclined to accept the said submission as the learned Judge, who passed the order under appeal, was the author of the order in the writ petition giving certain directions. The learned Judge after having understood the directions held that the appellants 2 & 3 have disobeyed the directions. It is true that the very same order was passed by the other learned Judge in similar writ petitions filed at the instance of similarly placed persons and when they filed contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience, the other Judge refused to entertain the said petitions. In our view, it is for the Court to decide whether to initiate contempt proceedings or not against the alleged contemnors, as the person alleging disobedience is only bringing the same to the notice of the learned Judge who passed the order. In this case, the learned Judge has considered in detail and has given reasons as to why he is holding the appellants 2 & 3 guilty of contempt. In that view of the matter, we do not find that the order under appeal is liable to be set aside on the ground that similar contempt petitions were dismissed by the other learned Judge. 16. Insofar as the other submission of Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel that the Supreme Court did not even find fault the failure of the ONGC to absorb the respondents herein in the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operator at the time of hearing of the contempt petition is concerned, we may observe that the said contempt petition was dismissed after recording the affidavit of undertaking filed on behalf of the Corporation to the effect that the benefits would be extended to similarly placed persons working in Rajamundry who had approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court with a similar prayer for absorption by way of a transfer application based upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court. Only under the said circumstances, the Supreme Court refrained from proceeding with the contempt petition. It is also to be noted that the respondents herein were not arrayed as parties in the said proceedings. Only under the said circumstances, the Supreme Court refrained from proceeding with the contempt petition. It is also to be noted that the respondents herein were not arrayed as parties in the said proceedings. Even before the dismissal of the contempt petition by the Supreme Court, the respondents have initiated contempt proceedings before this Court alleging non-compliance of the order in W.P.No.21518 of 2000. This Court was in the process of examining the issue as to whether the so called compliance of the directions, by appointing the respondents in the supernumerary posts of Helpers in the scale of pay applicable to Marine Assistant Radio Operator, would amount to actual compliance of the order dated 2.8.2006 in W.P.No.21518 of 2000. It is not the case of the appellants that the Supreme Court was apprised of the factum of pendency of such a contempt petition before this Court. The Supreme Court had no occasion to consider the contentions raised by the respondents with regard to the failure to create supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators. Therefore, the order passed by the Supreme Court dismissing the Contempt Petition No.130 of 2010 would not operate as an order approving the contentions taken by the appellants that the directions were complied with in its letter and spirit by appointing the respondents in the supernumerary posts of Helpers. It is the case of the respondents herein that their case had been independently considered by the learned Judge and the directions for absorption were given and that the same have been wilfully disobeyed. Hence, the submission of the learned senior counsel cannot be accepted and the same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the said submission is rejected. 17. This leads us to the issue as to whether the appellants 2 & 3 had disobeyed the directions of the Court wilfully. By order dated 2.8.2006, the writ petition was allowed and the appellants 2 & 3 were directed to absorb the respondents herein as Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect from 8.9.94 on the basis of the abolition of contract labour. That order came to be passed after taking note of the fact that the respondents were qualified to be appointed as Marine Assistant Radio Operators. That order came to be passed after taking note of the fact that the respondents were qualified to be appointed as Marine Assistant Radio Operators. It was also directed that if for any reason there was no cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operator or there were no sufficient posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators to accommodate all the respondents, the appellants 2 & 3 were directed to give pay protection and sanction the respondents the scale of pay as applicable to Marine Assistant Radio Operator as recommended by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The learned Judge, having noticed that contrary to the said direction the appellants 2 & 3 had passed an order absorbing the respondents as "Supernumerary Helpers", found that they have wilfully disobeyed the order. 18. From the records it is seen that on entertaining the contempt petition, a statutory notice was issued to the second appellant herein on 7.1.2011 directing him to appear before the Court on 21.1.2011, on which date he did not appear. But he filed an affidavit through the senior counsel viz., Mr.Gopal Subramaniam, learned Solicitor General of India and the contents of the affidavit were taken exception by the learned Judge. In the affidavit, the appellant no.2 had stated that he was to retire from the post of Chairman and Managing Director on 31.1.2011 and he was not in a position to appear before the Court on the date fixed, as he had to attend and complete various works which are urgent and unavoidable. It was further stated that he had to attend official meetings at Vadodara and the arrangement for the meeting was under way. When this was pointed out to the learned Solicitor General, he has expressed his sincere regrets for the wordings used by the appellant no.2 in the affidavit seeking to dispense with his personal appearance before the Court. The learned Judge also noticed that the learned Solicitor General assured the Court that the orders passed in the writ petition would be carried out in letter and spirit. When the contempt petition came up for hearing subsequently, the learned Judge noticed that in spite of such assurance, the order has not been complied with and therefore held that there was wilful disobedience. That apart, the directions were of two parts. When the contempt petition came up for hearing subsequently, the learned Judge noticed that in spite of such assurance, the order has not been complied with and therefore held that there was wilful disobedience. That apart, the directions were of two parts. Of course, in the first part, the learned Judge directed the absorption of the writ petitioners as Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect from 8.9.94. The learned Judge, in the second part, also directed that if for any reason there is no cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operator or there are no sufficient posts available in the said cadre to accommodate all the respondents, the appellants should give pay protection to the respondents and sanction them the scale of pay as applicable to the Marine Assistant Radio Operators as recommended by the Ministry. We do not find any ambiguity in the directions as has been understood and put forth by the appellants herein. The directions are unambiguous in the sense that the respondents herein should be absorbed as Marine Assistant Radio Operators. However, only in case if there is no cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operators or there are no sufficient posts available in that cadre, then they are entitled to pay protection as applicable to Marine Assistant Radio Operators. The second portion of the order does not mean that they can be appointed as "Helpers" and that too in supernumerary posts created by the appellants. The learned Judge has rightly found that in the event there is no cadre strength of Marine Assistant Radio Operators, they could have created supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators to accommodate the respondents herein. Law is well settled that the executives or authorities, as the case may be, are not entitled to interpret an order/direction for the purpose of implementation. In case any doubt is entertained, the only course open to them is to approach the very same Court seeking for alteration, modification or clarification of the said order. If such a right to interpret the Court's order is given to the executives or authorities, that will undermine the order of the Court which may result in defeating the rights of the parties who have secured such orders. 19. If such a right to interpret the Court's order is given to the executives or authorities, that will undermine the order of the Court which may result in defeating the rights of the parties who have secured such orders. 19. Recently, the Supreme Court in Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India, (2012) 1 SCC 273 made the position very clear that the order of the Court should be obeyed in its true spirit and substance and in the event of any difficulties, the Government department or its functionaries have to approach the Court either for extension of time or clarification. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as follows:- "20. In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are primarily concerned with enquiring whether the contemnor is guilty of intentional and wilful violation of the orders of the court, even to constitute a civil contempt. Every party to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to obey the orders of the court in its true spirit and substance. Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The government departments are no exception to it. The departments or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per orders of the court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court, least that is expected of the government department or its functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time or clarifications, if called for. But, where the party neither obeys the orders of the court nor approaches the court making appropriate prayers for extension of time or variation of order, the only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the orders of the court. In other words, it is intentionally not carrying out the orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the court’s orders would reflect the attitude of the party concerned to undermine the authority of the courts, its dignity and the administration of justice. 21. In Vinay Chandra Mishra, In re, this Court held that: “39. … judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform viz. Flagrant violation of the court’s orders would reflect the attitude of the party concerned to undermine the authority of the courts, its dignity and the administration of justice. 21. In Vinay Chandra Mishra, In re, this Court held that: “39. … judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform viz. to oversee that all individuals and institutions including the executive and the legislature act within the framework of not only the law but also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to peaceful and orderly development of the society. … dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.” 26. It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs." 20. In Anil Ratan Sarkar and others v. Hirak Ghosh and others, 2002 (4) SCC 21 the Supreme Court observed that it is neither fair nor reasonable on the part of the officers to feign ignorance or plead understanding when the direction of the Court stands crystal clear in the judgment. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot, (2006) 5 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court indicated the nature of contempt jurisdiction in the following words : 5. Disobedience of this Court's order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State. Disobedience of this Court's order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilised life in the society. That is why it is imperative and invariable that courts' orders are to be followed and complied with. 21. In T.R.Dhanjaya v. J.Vasudevan, (1995) 5 SCC 619 , the Supreme Court observed that when the claim inter-se had been adjudicated and had become final, it is no longer open to the Government to go behind the orders and truncate the effect of the orders passed by the Court by hovering over the rules to get round the result, to legitimise legal alibi to circumvent the orders passed by the Court. 22. In view of the above, the learned Judge has rightly held that there has been wilful disobedience in not complying with the order in letter and spirit as undertook by the appellants 2 & 3 at the time of hearing of the contempt petition. In this context, we may also refer that the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operator is at the top of Class III cadre, whereas the post of Helper is at the bottom of Class IV cadre and that too the absorption having been made by creating supernumerary posts. This being a factual finding of the learned Judge to hold the appellants 2 & 3 guilty of contempt, in our opinion, such factual findings require no interference, particularly when we do not find any infirmity or error in such findings. For all these reasons, the order of the learned Judge in holding the appellants 2 & 3 guilty of contempt for their wilful disobedience of the order dated 2.8.2006 passed in the writ petition requires no interference. 23. For all these reasons, the order of the learned Judge in holding the appellants 2 & 3 guilty of contempt for their wilful disobedience of the order dated 2.8.2006 passed in the writ petition requires no interference. 23. It was further argued that the learned Judge has issued a direction to the present Chairman and Managing Director of ONGC, namely, the appellant no.1, to implement the order of the Court. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel would submit that a direction given to the present Chairman & Managing Director is beyond the scope of the writ petition and such a direction cannot be issued in a contempt proceeding. We are not inclined to accept the said submission. It is true that a direction cannot be issued beyond the order in the writ petition. Nevertheless, when once a direction was issued for compliance and the Officers who were serving at the relevant point of time had retired and a new set of Officers assumed charge, naturally the direction of the Court should be implemented in letter and spirit by the successor Officer. Only in that context, the learned Judge had directed the implementation of the order dated 2.8.2006 by the present Chairman and Managing Director of ONGC and such a direction requires no interference. 24. In this context, we may observe that the rule of law is a fundamental feature of our Constitution and the right to obtain judicial redress is a feature of its basic structure. The law of contempt is to secure public respect and confidence in judiciary and judicial process. The purpose of contempt proceedings is to preserve and maintain the flow of stream of justice in its unsullied form and purity. Any kind of act which is apparent and amounts to depriving a person from obtaining a relief in Court would amount to interference with the administration of justice. The power of contempt beholds the Court to act with due circumspection making appropriate allowances for common human fallings within reasonable limits. In the event a citizen is denied justice to which he is entitled to due to the act of another, such citizen must be reasonably compensated. Even a possible attempted interference with or obstruction of the Courts of justice is a grave matter which demands proper consideration and action. 25. In the event a citizen is denied justice to which he is entitled to due to the act of another, such citizen must be reasonably compensated. Even a possible attempted interference with or obstruction of the Courts of justice is a grave matter which demands proper consideration and action. 25. For all the foregoing discussions and observations, we find no merit in the contempt appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed with a direction to the first appellant to implement the order dated 2.8.2006 made in W.P.No.21518 of 2000 in its true letter and spirit by absorbing the respondents as Marine Assistant Radio Operators even by creating supernumerary posts in that cadre and grant them all the consequential benefits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2012 is also dismissed. No costs.