JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed alleging therein that the respondents have violated and disobeyed the order dated 16.09.2010 passed by the writ court in Writ Petition No. 6560 (S/S) of 2010 whereby the respondents in the writ petition were directed to make payment of salary to the petitioners regularly every month. 3. It appears that on account of non-payment of salary, the petitioners earlier instituted a contempt petition bearing No. 3134 of 2010 which was disposed of by this Court by means of an order dated 01.08.2012. Hon'ble Contempt Judge while deciding the contempt petition, was of the view that appointment of the petitioners in the institution is a controversial question of fact, which can only be decided by the writ court. Accordingly, the Court without entering into the merits of the case gave liberty to the petitioners to raise their grievance before the court where the main writ petition was pending. The operative portion of the order dated 01.08.2012 passed by this Court in contempt petition no. 3134 of 2010 is as under: - "After hearing both the parties, it appears that the appointment of the petitioner in the institution is a controversial question of fact, which can be decided only by the writ court. Hence, without entering into the merits of the case, liberty is given to the petitioner to raise the grievance, before the writ court where the main writ petition (supra) is pending. The contempt petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty." 4. On being asked as to how there being no further development or no fresh cause of action having accrued to the petitioners, this contempt petition is maintainable in view of the order dated 01.08.2012 passed by this Court in earlier contempt petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Durga Nagpal vs. C/M. Patronage Institute of Management Studies and others, reported in [ 2016 (34) LCD 477 ]. He has further stated that since earlier the order dated 01.08.2012 passed by Hon'ble Contempt Judge is completely without jurisdiction, as such the petitioners are at liberty to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court again by filing fresh contempt petition. He has further stated that since earlier the order dated 01.08.2012 passed by Hon'ble Contempt Judge is completely without jurisdiction, as such the petitioners are at liberty to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court again by filing fresh contempt petition. He has placed reliance on paragraph 19 of the judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Durga Nagpal (supra). A perusal of the said judgement makes it clear that submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners are highly misconceived. The facts of the case in Durga Nagpal (supra) were entirely different than the facts of the instant case. In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5325 (M/B) of 2012 had passed an interim order directing the respondents therein to provide necessary recognition and benefit to the petitioner-society. It appears that on account of alleged non-compliance of the aforesaid order dated 28.06.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the contempt proceedings were initiated by the Committee of Management of the college concerned by instituting Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1853 (C) of 2012 in which notices were issued to the authorities concerned and after hearing learned counsel for the parties including learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, the Contempt Judge took note of the fact that the recognition has been granted to the respondent-Committee of Management. It also transpires that after recording the statement of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for Vice-Chancellor of the University concerned, the contempt petition was disposed of finally and contemnors were discharged. 5. From perusal of the said judgement rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Durga Nagpal (supra), it further appears that inspite of statement made before the Contempt Judge, authorities concerned were alleged not to have kept their words and feeling aggrieved with the alleged inaction on the part of the authorities, respondent-Committee of Management in the said case filed a miscellaneous application in the contempt petition for modification of the order dated 21.08.2012 whereby the contempt petition was disposed of and the contemnors were discharged. The said application for modification of the order dated 21.08.2012 was taken cognizance of. 6. The said application for modification of the order dated 21.08.2012 was taken cognizance of. 6. Being aggrieved, the order passed on the modification application by the Contempt Judge was challenged by the petitioner-Durga Nagpal before the Division Bench of this Court by filing Special Appeal. It is in these circumstances that it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that there does not appear to be any room of doubt that once contempt proceeding was dropped and contemnor was discharged, it was not open for the Contempt Judge to review his own order after entertaining the miscellaneous application. Para 17 of the said judgement rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Durga Nagpal (supra) is quoted below: - 17. Keeping in view the proposition of law discussed hereinabove, there appears to be no room of doubt that once contempt proceeding was dropped and contemnor was discharged, it was not open for the Contempt Judge to review his own order after entertaining the miscellaneous application for modification of final judgment. Since accused were discharged (supra) and proceeding was closed, the miscellaneous application for modification was not maintainable. Thus, Contempt Judge seems to have passed the impugned order without jurisdiction. Since the Contempt Judge exercised jurisdiction without any authority, the special appeal seems to be maintainable. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to maintainability of special, seems to be misconceived and is not sustainable. The Division Bench further observed in paragraph 19, on which learned counsel for the petitioners has laid great emphasis, that it is not that the respondent petitioner in the said case was remediless. The Court further proceeded to observe that instead of moving a miscellaneous application for modification of the order, respondent petitioner could have filed fresh contempt petition on account of alleged violation of undertaking given before the Court as it constituted fresh cause of action or an application under Article 215 of Constitution of India could have been moved for action and punishment by the appropriate Court on account of violation of undertaking given and relied upon by the Court while discharging the contemnor. Paragraph 19 of the said judgement is also quoted below: - "19. It is not so that respondent petitioner is remediless. Paragraph 19 of the said judgement is also quoted below: - "19. It is not so that respondent petitioner is remediless. Instead of moving a miscellaneous application for modification of order, the respondent petitioner could have filed fresh contempt petition on account of alleged violation of undertaking given before the Court as it constitute fresh cause of action or an application under Article 215 of Constitution of India could have been moved for action and punishment by the appropriate Court on account of violation of undertaking given and relied upon by the Court while discharging contemnor." 7. The observation made by Division Bench of this Court in para 19 of the said case has been completely misread and misconstrued by learned counsel for the petitioners. The observations made therein by the Division Bench of this Court were in the background of the fact that it was before the Contempt Judge that an undertaking was given by the alleged contemnors and it was only on the basis of undertaking given that the contempt petition was disposed of and the contemnors were discharged. 8. The allegation in the said case was that the impeached action on the part of the contemnors was in violation of the undertaking given before the Hon'ble Contempt Judge. It is in the background of these facts that the Division Bench of this Court in the said case has observed that since violation of an undertaking given before the Contempt Judge would amount to fresh cause of action, as such it was possible for the person aggrieved to have instituted fresh contempt petition. The emphasis, thus, is that there has to be a fresh cause of action after disposal of the earlier contempt petition to entitle the petitioners to approach this Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act or under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioners has completely failed to point out as to what is the fresh cause of action which can be said to have accrued to the petitioners to institute fresh contempt petition after disposal of earlier contempt petition by means of the order dated 01.08.2012. This contempt petition, in my considered opinion, is, thus, nothing but a manifestation of the abuse of process of the Court which is hereby dismissed. 10. This contempt petition, in my considered opinion, is, thus, nothing but a manifestation of the abuse of process of the Court which is hereby dismissed. 10. Knowing fully well that the earlier contempt petition was disposed of by means of order dated 01.08.2012 these proceedings have been instituted without establishing or even stating any new cause of action which can be said to have accrued to the petitioners after disposal of the contempt petition on 01.08.2012. The facts and circumstances of the case, thus, compel this Court to observe that filing of this petition cannot be appreciated and such a practice needs to be curbed.