JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. 1. Petitioners were appointed as Kurk Amin in Cooperative Department on various dates prior to the appointed day i.e. 9.11.2000, when State of Uttarakhand came into existence; petitioners preferred WPSS NO. 4796 of 2001 before this Court, which was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 31.3.2006; Writ of Mandamus was issued commanding the respondents to accord full status of holder of civil post to the petitioners with all consequential benefits with effect from 16.11.1985; order and judgment dated 31.3.2006 passed by learned Single Judge was assailed in Special Appeal No. 24 of 2007; Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 14.9.2010, rendered in Special Appeal No. 24 of 2007 was pleased to uphold the judgment passed by learned Single Judge with the modification that consequential benefits i.e. arrears of salary shall be paid by the State of Uttarakhand to the petitioners with effect from 9.11.2000 only, when State of Uttarakhand came into existence; thereafter, all the arrears were paid to the petitioners, however, commission received by the petitioners for collection of the dues were adjusted against the arrears to be paid to the petitioners. 2. Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the contempt applicants, has vehemently argued that State of Uttarakhand cannot adjust the amount received by the petitioners towards collection commission, that too prior to creation of the State of Uttarakhand, on two accounts – firstly, recovery commission does not fall within the definition of ‘public money’ and, secondly, since liability to pay the arrears of salary prior to 9.11.2000 is of the State of Uttar Pradesh, adjustment, if any, can only be made by the State of Uttar Pradesh and not by the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the contempt applicants, further contended that even petitioners are not being given benefit of promotion nor other admissible allowances are being paid to the petitioners. 3. In my considered opinion, jurisdiction of the contempt court is akin to the executing court. Neither contempt court nor executing court can go behind the judgment/order/decree. Contempt or Executing Court cannot omit or add something in the orders, non compliance or violation whereof is alleged. 3. In my considered opinion, jurisdiction of the contempt court is akin to the executing court. Neither contempt court nor executing court can go behind the judgment/order/decree. Contempt or Executing Court cannot omit or add something in the orders, non compliance or violation whereof is alleged. The only thing which requires to be seen by the contempt court is as to whether order was complied with or there is a wilful disobedience and violation of the order/judgment passed by the court. 4. In my further considered opinion, even if order has been bonafidly misunderstood while enforcing the same, it cannot be said to be wilful disobedience or violation of the order. The question as to whether amount received by the petitioners prior to creation of the State of Uttarakhand towards the collection/commission can be adjusted against the arrears of salary was neither decided by the Writ Court or Appellate Court nor was raised before the Writ Court/Appellate Court. Therefore, petitioners are always at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to challenge the said adjustment. Non grant of other admissible dues or promotion can also be agitated therein. 5. In view of the above discussion, contempt notices issued stand withdrawn.