JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have laid this contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging therein that the respondents have willfully and deliberately disobeyed and circumvented the order passed by this Court on 18th of January 2013. 2. While deciding the writ petition preferred on behalf of the petitioners, the Court was pleased to issue following directions: "In this view matter, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh representation alongwith certified copy of this order for their grievances. The respondents are directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioners with regard to their claim made in the representation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is expected from the respondents that if it is found that the petitioners are eligible and entitled for benefits as prayed by them, the benefits may be extended to them in accordance with law. 3. After issuance of notice of the contempt petition, reply to the contempt petition is submitted on behalf of respondents No.3 & 4. In the reply, the respondents have categorically averred that no attempt was made by them to circumvent or disobey the directions issued by this Court. While referring to the order dated 26th of February 2013 (Annex.4 with the contempt petition), the respondents have submitted that after rejection of the representation of the petitioners, no cause survives in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, has urged that although the representation submitted by the petitioners has been turned down by the Managing Director of RSMM Limited, Udaipur vide order dated 26th of February 2013 but while passing the said order grievances of the petitioners have not been considered appropriately, and therefore, the respondents are guilty of committing contempt of this Court. Mr. Rajpurohit has also placed reliance on the letter dated 16th of February 2013 which was addressed by the third respondent to the Managing Director of RSMM and submitted that the due amount which is admissible to the petitioners has been worked out with clarity and precision, and therefore, it was not desirable from the Managing Director, RSMM to reject the representation of the petitioners in an absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable manner. 5. Per contra, Mr. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mohit Singhvi, learned counsel for the second respondent, has submitted that the order Annex.4 is a full compliance of the directions issued by this Court and as such nothing survives in this contempt petition. 6. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, has argued that there is no semblance of proof that the respondents have willfully or deliberately disobeyed or circumvented the order passed by this Court warranting action against them under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, 'Act of 1971'). Pointing out directions issued by this Court, Mr. Singhvi would urge that the direction was to decide the representation and after decision of the representation, it is not permissible to examine the merits of the decision in a contempt petition as according to him it is not a case of willful disobedience. 7. Mr. Singhvi further submits that rejection of the representation of the petitioner has furnished a fresh cause of action to the petitioners for which they can seek redressal from appropriate forum and the same cannot be made subject matter of judicial review in contempt proceedings. In support of his contentions, Mr. Singhvi has placed reliance on a judgment of Honble Apex Court in case of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar [ (1996) 6 SCC 291 ] . 8. The Honble Apex Court, while examining the seniority list drawn pursuant to Courts order, has repelled the contention of petitioners in a contempt proceedings that the same is not in conformity with the order of this Court, and held that it is not a case of willful disobedience. The Honble Apex Court made following observations in Para 6 of the verdict: 6. The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr S.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2- 7-1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench. 9. The said view of the Honble Apex Court was further reiterated in case of Midnapore peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda and Others [(2006) 5 SCC 399 ] and the Honble Apex Court has held that in a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of Court was committed, and if so what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceedings, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. 10. In such a proceedings, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. In the present case, the precise complaint of the petitioners is that the respondents have made willful disobedience to the order passed by this Court which is a civil contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971. For proving willful disobedience, it is necessary for the aggrieved party to show that there was clear intention to flout the orders of this Court by the contemnor. The word willful connotes "purposefulness" and conscious and intentional attempt by the contemnor. It is true that unless the disobedience is intentional, or deliberate, or purposeful, no contempt would be made out. 12. On a close scrutiny of the order Annex.4 passed by the Managing Director, RSMM limited, it is crystal clear that the representation submitted by the petitioners has been examined threadbare and the same has been rejected. The consideration and rejection of the representation submitted by the petitioner clearly amounts to compliance of the order passed by this Court and the reasons spelt out in the order rejecting the representation of the petitioners cannot be made subject matter of judicial scrutiny in the contempt proceedings. 13. In view of above, in my considered opinion, no case for contempt of Court is made out and the petitioner for contempt is accordingly dismissed. Notices are discharged.Petition Dismissed. *******