ORDER : This petition alleges non compliance with the order dated 14-9-2011 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12884/2010. The petitioner who was a Junior Specialist with the Medical and Health Department, sought voluntary retirement under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter the `1996 Rules'). A dispute with regard thereto arose and the question was whether the petitioner's voluntary retirement was effective 1-8-2010 for failure of the competent authority to reject the application within three months of the request for voluntary retirement. This court in writ petition No.12884/2010 vide order dated 14-9-2011 allowed the writ petition holding that the petitioner stood automatically retired w.e.f. 1-8-2010 in pursuance to Rule 50(2) of the 1996 Rules. The order dated 4-8-2010 contrary thereto issued by respondents refusing to accept the petitioner's voluntary retirement was set aside. The petitioner was held entitled to consequential benefits” flowing from his voluntary retirement effective 1-8-2010 as found by this court. Consequent to the petitioner's voluntary retirement effective 1-8-2010 he was paid retiral benefits but only in January, 2014, after an inordinate delay of about three years. The petitioner claims interest on the amount of retiral benefits three months following 1-8-2010 upto January, 2014 (when he was paid the retiral benefits) as per the provisions of Rule 89 of the 1996 Rules. No payment of interest or delayed payment of retiral benefits in spite of direction of consequential benefits is stated to be “willful default” and hence contempt of the court's order dated 14-9-2011. Reply to the contempt petition has been filed. It is cryptic. It has been submitted that the order dated 14-9-2011 passed by this court has been complied with, inasmuch as under order 28-9-2012 the factum of petitioner's retirement effective 1-8-2010 as directed/ held by this court has been recognised. Nothing has been however stated as to payment of consequent retiral benefits and interest thereon for failing to pay such benefits within three months of the voluntary retirement. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent, in spite of the fact that respondents are represented through Government Advocates. This apparently on account of the participation also of Government Advocates in the Advocates' strike. Heard the petitioner and perused the reply to the contempt petition. Contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent, in spite of the fact that respondents are represented through Government Advocates. This apparently on account of the participation also of Government Advocates in the Advocates' strike. Heard the petitioner and perused the reply to the contempt petition. Contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature. If a specific direction of the court is not complied with or an undertaking before the court is contravened it entails contempt proceedings at the option of the aggrieved party or suo moto if the occasion so arises. In the instant case this court vide order dated 14-9-2011 had directed that the petitioner would be entitled to voluntarily retirement effective 1-8-2010 as also “consequential benefits”. In my considered opinion, there is no substance in the submissions of the petitioner that the court's directions for “consequential benefits” to the petitioner directly and mandatorily entailed interest on delayed payment of retiral dues to him with reference to Rule 89 of the 1996 Rules. Rule 89 of the 1996 Rules aforesaid is only an enabling provision where under payment of interest is not automatic, but conditional in circumstances enumerated under Rule 89 of the 1996 Rules. The conditions/ circumstances under Rule 89 have to be satisfied before the right to interest on delayed payment of retiral dues beyond three months of the date of retirement accrues. In contempt proceedings this court cannot go into the question as to whether the petitioner was/ is entitled to interest on retiral dues. That would entail a finding of fact on consideration of competing contentions. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 14-9-2011 has not made any such specific directions. Absent a specific direction, stretched construction of the court's judgment cannot supply the condition for finding a willful default for holding respondents in contempt. Consequently, I find no force in the submission of the petitioner. The petitioner has been paid his retiral benefits flowing as a necessary consequence of his voluntary retirement effective 1-8-2010. Claim for interest on delayed payment of retiral dues is remote and dependent on yet unproven reasons for the delay attributable to the respondents alone and without any justification. In the circumstances no contempt as alleged can be made out. The contempt petition is therefore dismissed. Claim for interest on delayed payment of retiral dues is remote and dependent on yet unproven reasons for the delay attributable to the respondents alone and without any justification. In the circumstances no contempt as alleged can be made out. The contempt petition is therefore dismissed. It is however made clear that the observations of this court on the issue of interest shall not prejudice the petitioner who shall be at liberty to agitate the issue of interest on his retiral benefits in terms of Rule 89 of the 1996 Rules, if advised, in accordance with law before the competent forum/ court.