Judgment :- 1. Neither writ jurisdiction is meant to improve the fortunes of persons coming to this Court nor the contempt jurisdiction can be exercised either as a devise to coerce, pressurize or blackmail persons or even to exercise the jurisdiction in a sympathetic manner. 2. Complainants are persons who are working in a theater organization by name Rangayana at Mysore and submission of Sri.Raghavendra, learned counsel for the complainants is that such employees are receiving salary which was aided by the Government of Karnataka, but the same being not on par with the service conditions of the employees of the State Government, the complainants are agitating for parity. 3. In this background, it appears, the complainants had approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.Nos.3430-3458/2003, which came to be disposed of as per the order dated 6th January, 2005 (copy produced at Annexure – C(1) to the petition). 4. It transpires that the fortunes of the complainants did not improve and therefore, one more round of litigation in W.P.No.4003/2007, which also came to be disposed of as per the order dated 11th March, 2011 (copy produced at Annexure – C2 to the petition) – the operative portion of the order reads as under:- “4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 29.01.2007, as per Annexure-P specifies that there is no consideration of petitioners objections dated 23.01.2007. Further, the perusal of Annexures to the impugned order at Annexure-P specifies that the rules approved by the Government do not provide for time bound promotion, pension, gratuity, provident fund, insurance and other benefits. In the circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 5. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-P dated 29.01.2007 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the first respondent to re-consider the entire matter by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and as expeditious as possible without further loss of time. 6. Pursuant to the impugned order, certain benefits are extended to the employees of third respondent including the petitioners herein and the same shall not be disturbed until the re-consideration of the matter by the first respondent.” 5. The complainants are before the Court invoking the contempt jurisdiction on the premise that this order has not been obeyed or complied with. 6. Submission of Sri. The complainants are before the Court invoking the contempt jurisdiction on the premise that this order has not been obeyed or complied with. 6. Submission of Sri. Raghavendra, learned counsel for the complainants is that the State Government was required to frame the Rules regulating the service conditions of the complainants, that it was for the purpose of maintaining parity with the employees of the State Government, but the State Government is lukewarm to the needs and demands of the complainants and that it amounts to disobedience and therefore, liable to be proceeded in the contempt jurisdiction. 7. A perusal of the order passed in the writ petition does not indicate any positive directions for any specific purposes, that apart framing of Rules is a part of administrative function and in respect of which no mandamus be issued. It is an order more in the nature of a wishful thinking, more out of sympathy and compassion towards the petitioners/complainants and not as a binding direction to the respondent State. 8. Be that as it may, it is open to the State Government to extend such benefits as it deems fit in respect of the complainants who claim are employees of Rangayana theatre, but we find it rather difficult to exercise the contempt jurisdiction of this court in such circumstances and therefore, the contempt petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the complainants to work out their rights and remedies, if any, elsewhere in accordance with law.