Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for drawing contempt against the respondents and for punishing them for the reasons taken in the contempt petition. It is specifically averred in the contempt petition that the respondents have not complied with the directions contained in the Judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No. 6037 of 2008 read with Division Bench Judgment delivered in LPA No.108 of 2012. 2. The respondents have filed the reply and have stated that they have complied with the directions contained in the aforesaid judgments, in letter and spirit. 3. Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner has argued that LPA No. 108 of 2012, came to be dismissed and the Division Bench has upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T)No. 6037 of 2008 and passed the appropriate directions contained in para 18 of the said judgment whereby a batch of LPAs came to be disposed of in terms of the mandate of that judgment. It is apt to reproduce para 18 of the said judgment herein: “18. In the above circumstances, the appeals and the writ petitions are disposed of as follows: The direction in the judgment in Rakesh Chand’s case in CWP (T) No. 781 of 2008 for granting the running pay scale to the JBT teachers from the date of their initial appointment is set aside. However, it is held that the JBT teachers appointed on contract basis will be entitled to the initial of the pay scale attached to the post of JBT teachers and revised from time to time. It is also clarified that the principle that is applied in the case of the JBT teachers in equal force would apply to the School Lecturers appointed on contract basis. LPA No. 108 of 2012 is dismissed. All other appeals are partly allowed and the writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.” 4. The judgment made by the Writ court in CWP (T) No. 781 of 2008 for granting the running pay scale to the JBT teachers from the date of their initial appointment was set aside in LPA No. 105 of 2010, and directions came to be passed, which governed the said writ petition and other writ petitions subject matter of that judgment. Further contended that the judgment earned by the Writ petitioner in CWP(T) No. 6037 of 2008, which was subject matter of LPA No. 108 of 2012 came to be dismissed and judgment of the writ Court stands upheld. The respondents have failed to comply with the writ Court judgment which stands upheld in LPA No. 108 of 2012, by the Division Bench. 5. The learned Advocate General argued that the directions contained in the writ Court judgment are contradictory with the judgment made in LPA No. 105 of 2012 and are not in tune with the directions passed in other writ petitions, details of which are given in para 18 of the judgment as quoted supra. 6. The argument advanced by the learned Advocate General though attractive, is devoid of any force, for the simple reason that LPA No. 108 of 2012 came to be dismissed, meaning thereby the judgment impugned in that LPA stands upheld and respondents had to comply with the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench in CWP(T) No. 6037 of 2008. It was for the State to seek appropriate remedy. 7. We have gone through the compliance report, is not in tune with the judgment made by the learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No. 6037 of 2008, upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No. 108 of 2012. 8. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to comply with the judgments referred to supra, within six weeks from today. In default, show-cause why Rule be not issued against them. 9. As a corollary, the Contempt petition stands disposed of.