JUDGMENT 1. - Non compliance with the order dated 6-8-2008 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4264/2007 has been alleged in this contempt petition. Thereby this court had allowed the writ petition as under:- "Consequently, writ petition is partly allowed to the extent that order impugned dated 8-8-2007 as regards award of interest @ 9% per annum is hereby set aside. Petitioner is directed to pass necessary orders in compliance of directions issued vide judgment impugned dated 8-5-2007 for reinstatement with consequential benefits within two months. However, it will be open for the petitioner to proceed with disciplinary inquiry against respondent No.1 after due compliance of principles of natural justice in accordance with law. No order as to costs." 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that far from reinstating the petitioner within a period of two months as directed by this court and even upto the time for reinstatement of the petitioner extended by the Division Bench under its order dated 15-10-2008, the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 19-11-2009 purporting a penalty pursuant to a second charge sheet issued to petitioner on 7-8-2004. Counsel has submitted that in terms of order dated 6-8-2008, it was incumbent upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner instead of removing the petitioner purportedly proceeding on a second charge sheet. Counsel submits that the action of the respondents are contempt of court and hence the respondents be punished therefor. 3. Mrs. Anita Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that even though the respondents had liberty under order dated 6-8-2008 to proceed afresh with the charge sheet dated 27-9-2003 in compliance with the principles of natural justice, yet the respondents exercised their discretion to abandon the said charge sheet and instead proceed with the charge sheet dated 7-8-2004 (second charge sheet), in pursuance whereof the petitioner was removed from service on 19-11- 2009. That order has not been put to challenge and attained finality. 4. It has been then submitted by counsel for respondents that in compulsion with the order dated 6-8-2008 passed by this court upholding the order dated 8-5-2007 passed by the Tribunal setting aside the petitioner's termination dated 1-6-2005 on proceedings taken under charge sheet dated 27-9-2003 and directing that the petitioner be reinstated, the petitioner who had superannuated on 31-10-2010 on completing 60 years of age was formally reinstated on 5-6-2013 effective 1-6-2005. It has been submitted that the said order of reinstatement of petitioner effective 1-6-2005 lasted only till his dismissal on 19-11-2009 as detailed above. It has been submitted that in the circumstances compliance with the order dated 6-8-2008 qua reinstatement of the petitioner thus stood fully made. As far as consequential benefits of reinstatement are concerned, requisite payments have been made to the petitioner. Attention of this court has been drawn to the order dated 29-1- 2014 in this contempt petition. It has been submitted that in the aforesaid order this court had recorded that learned counsel for both the parties have agreed to finally resolve the matter (in this contempt petition) on payment of outstanding amount to the petitioner from 10-6-2003 when the petitioner was suspended till 19-11-2009 when he was dismissed in the second departmental enquiry under charge sheet dated 7-8-2004. Counsel submitted that it was also agreed between the parties that interest on amount due for the aforesaid period at the rate of 6% per annum would be paid albeit on reducing basis subsequent to 6-12-2008 till the date of final payment with the caveat that subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner as also other amounts paid to the petitioner would be adjusted.It has been submitted that in compliance with the aforesaid agreed order the petitioner has been paid Rs. 13,62,424/- aside of Rs. 9,78,000/- earlier paid to him. And with the payment of aforesaid amounts, consequential benefits resulting from reinstatement of the petitioner with the setting aside the order of termination dated 1-6-2005 has been made over to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Samdariya has however submitted that the amounts paid to the petitioner as stated by counsel for respondents are not in full compliance with the order dated 6-8-2008 and the petitioner is entitled to receive a further amount of Rs. 32 lacs odd and more. Non payment of the due amounts constituted contempt of the court's order dated 6-8-2008, submitted counsel. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The scope of a contempt petition is limited to see/ ensure compliance with the direction of this court or hold a party to an undertaking given in court and punish in the court's discretion where persistent and continuous wilful default on any of the two counts, is made out. 7. The scope of a contempt petition is limited to see/ ensure compliance with the direction of this court or hold a party to an undertaking given in court and punish in the court's discretion where persistent and continuous wilful default on any of the two counts, is made out. By its order dated 6- 8-2008, this court had inter alia directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service. This has been done by the respondents vide order dated 5-6- 2013 reinstating the petitioner efffective 1-6-2005 i.e. the date when the petitioner was terminated from service following enquiry under charge sheet dated 27-9-2003, albeit found bad by this court for non compliance with the principles of natural justice. The further direction of this court was that the petitioner would be entitled to consequential benefits of reinstatement. The respondents have stated that consequential monetary benefits following reinstatement have been paid to the petitioner in terms detailed earlier in this order. This however is contested by the counsel for the petitioner asserting that aside of amount of about Rs. 23 lacs odd paid in the aggregate, another sum of Rs. 32 lacs odd is due as consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date of reinstatement in service till the date of retirement. In my considered opinion, in contempt jurisdiction this court cannot engage in an accounting exercise as the parties herein seek. This court is only to ex-facie see whether substantial compliance with its order has been made or not. On that test, it appears to be so in the present case, disputes with regard to amounts payable notwithstanding. 8. I therefore find no contempt of the order dated 6-8-2008 as alleged by the petitioner on account of non payment of consequential benefits to his satisfaction. This conclusion is however limited in scope and only for the purpose of this contempt petition. The petitioner would be free to agitate before an appropriate forum suited to address disputed questions of fact and take accounts, the alleged short payment of consequential benefits to which the petitioner states to be entitled to in terms of the agreed order dated 29-1-2014 passed earlier in this contempt petition. The petitioner would be free to agitate before an appropriate forum suited to address disputed questions of fact and take accounts, the alleged short payment of consequential benefits to which the petitioner states to be entitled to in terms of the agreed order dated 29-1-2014 passed earlier in this contempt petition. All issues not addressed in this contempt petition relevant to computation of amounts due for the period indicated in the aforesaid order dated 29-1-2014 would be open to be agitated if the petitioner were to take his remedy for alleged short payments before an appropriate forum. 9. I also do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been dismissed without a department enquiry conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice as directed by this court under its order dated 6-8-2008 qua the charge sheet dated 27-9-2003. It is on record that the respondent did not at all proceed with the aforesaid charge sheet, but instead took proceedings against the petitioner on a second charge sheet dated 7-8- 2004 resulting in petitioner's dismissal on 19-11-2009. 10. Mr. Samdariya at this stage seeks liberty to challenge the order dated 19-11-2009, which was not earlier done in view of this pending contempt petition. Ms. Anita Agrawal opposes the prayer. Be as it may, the petitioner has the right to take his remedy against any order including the order dated 19-11-2009, if he is aggrieved thereof. Simultaneously the respondent/s in such proceedings would indisputably have a right to oppose the claims/ petition on all grounds available in law. Hence the petitioner may challenge the order dated 19-11-2009 and if so done, the respondents shall be at liberty to take all defences as available in law against such a challenge.The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.Petition disposed of accordingly. *******