JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This contempt petition is outcome of judgment, dated 7th January, 2015, made by the Writ Court in CWP No. 10626 of 2011, titled as Soju Ram versus State of H.P. and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of with a command to the respondents to follow the directions passed by this Court in CWP No. 10625 of 2011, titled as Mohan Lal versus State of H.P. and others. 2. The respondent has filed the reply alongwith the consideration order indicating therein how the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought. 3. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the consideration order, dated 21st April, 2016, herein: “.............And whereas the fact of the matter is that and as per the mandays of the petitioner Sh. Soju Ram it is revealed that he has worked on two different posts i.e. Beldar/Assitt Fitter with 240 days w.e.f. 1983 to 30/06/1987 (Class-IV) post and Fitter (Class-III) posts w.e.f. 07/1987 to 31/12/1994. Thereafter w.e.f. 1995 till date, the petitioner has worked as Helper i.e. Class-IV post on his regularization. And whereas, the service of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 1994 as Helper retrospectively on 19/01/1995 in terms of judgment in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case and he joined as such without any protest. The petitioner served the department as regular Helper for more than 17 years, thereafter, he filed the writ petition for the first time 2011 after a delay of about 17 years. And whereas the petitioner has served in the department in two capacity as under:- (a) Beldar/Assitt. Fitter (Class-IV) post on daily wages w.e.f. 1983 to 1987 (5 years) (b) Fitter (Class-III) post on daily wages w.e.f. 1987 to 1994 (c) Helper (Class-IV) regular basis 01/01/1994 till date (regularized 19/01/1995 retrospectively). The petitioner was regularized as Helper w.e.f. 01/01/1994 on the completion of 10 years as per the judgement in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of circumstances of this case, the petitioner has never served for 10 years as Fitter, therefore, in the interest of the petitioner, the competent authority has already regularized him Helper on completion of 10 years in terms of judgement in Mool Raj as well as Gauri Dutt’s judgment. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of circumstances of this case, the petitioner has never served for 10 years as Fitter, therefore, in the interest of the petitioner, the competent authority has already regularized him Helper on completion of 10 years in terms of judgement in Mool Raj as well as Gauri Dutt’s judgment. Since, the petitioner has never completed 10 years of service on Class-III posts, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for regularization on higher posts. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner is considered in the light of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court in LPA No. 169/15 accordingly.” 4. In view of the above, it is not known why the petitioner has not invoked the jurisdiction of this Court within time. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that the juniors to the petitioner have been given the benefits, but the petitioner has been deprived of the same. 6. The question is – whether this Court can pass the directions in contempt proceedings, which have not been passed in the judgment made by the Writ Court? 7. It is beaten law of the land that the Court in the contempt proceedings cannot pass fresh directions, but has to ascertain whether the directions passed in the judgment made by the Writ Court have been complied with. 8. It appears that the respondents have complied with the Court directions. It is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, if still aggrieved. But, in the given circumstances of the case, the petitioner will be caught by delay and laches. 9. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, we deem it proper to record herein that the delay and laches shall not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking appropriate remedy. 10. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.