JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Aforesaid contempt petitions were taken up together for adjudication by this Court since common issue is involved and similar reliefs have been claimed by the petitioners in all the petitions. This Court, taking cognizance of the averments contained in the aforesaid contempt petitions and directions contained in Judgment dated 18.4.2012 passed in CWP(T) No. 634 of 2008 with CWP(T)’s No. 635 to 639 and 642 of 2008 and thereafter subsequent judgment dated 26.8.2015 passed in COPC No. 278/2015 along with COPC’s No. 271 and 343 of 2015, passed a detailed judgment on 13.7.2016. Vide judgment dated 13.7.2016, this Court deemed it a fit case, where show cause notice could be issued to the respondents for non-compliance of judgment dated 18.4.2012 as well as subsequent petitions. Accordingly, vide aforesaid judgment, this Court issued show cause notice to respondents under Contempt of Court (Himachal Pradesh) Rules, 1996, calling upon them to show cause, why contempt proceedings against them be not initiated for having knowingly, deliberately and willfully violating orders passed on 18.4.2012 in CWP(T) Nos. 634 to 639 and 642 of 2008 and subsequent judgment dated 26.8.2015 passed in COPC No. 278 of 2015 alongwith connected matters. Pursuant to aforesaid show cause notices, respondents put in appearance before this Court and filed reply thereto. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate, appearing for the respondents, submitted before this Court that judgment dated 18.4.2012 stands duly complied with and all the reliefs, in terms of aforesaid judgment, stand extended to the petitioners. He specifically invited attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the respondents to demonstrate that judgment in question stands duly complied with, in its letter and spirit. While referring to annexure R-1/G placed on record with the reply to show cause notice, Mr. Bhardwaj stated that the Vice Chancellor has been pleased to allow fixation of pay in respect of petitioners as per respective Fitment Tables No.1, 2 and 3, already notified vide Notification dated 16.10.2009. He also stated that revised UGC pay scales of Rs. 15,600-39,100+8,000 AGP, Rs.15,600-39,100+7,000 AGP and Rs.15,600-39,100+6,000 AGP to the categories of Senior Research Officer, Research Officer and Project Officer, respectively, of Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies have been granted from the date of their regularization i.e. 9.9.2014 in supersession of notification dated 6.8.2015. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Bhardwaj, humbly prayed for withdrawing the show cause notice issued to the respondents. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Bhardwaj, humbly prayed for withdrawing the show cause notice issued to the respondents. 2. Mr. Anand Sharma, learned Counsel representing the petitioner, opposed the aforesaid prayer of Mr. Bhardwaj by stating that judgment dated 18.4.2012 passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 634/2008 and connected matters, have not been complied in its letter and spirit and as such respondents deserve to be punished for their act of non-compliance under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Mr. Sharma, stated that as per judgment dated 18.4.2012, petitioners are entitled to all consequential benefits including regularization after completion of period of six years of service in the year 2010-11, whereas, as per Notification dated 22.8.2016, annexure R-1/G, they have been regularized from 9.9.2014, which definitely is not in terms of aforesaid judgment passed by this Court. Mr. Sharma, further stated that the persons junior to the present petitioners have been granted pay scale equivalent to the categories of Senior Research Officer, Research Officer and Project Officer. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It would be apt to reproduce herein below following paras of the reply to show cause notice filed by the respondents. “1. That the replying respondents have highest regards to the orders, directions, and judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court and can’t ever think of disobeying any directions issued by this Hon'ble Court. Further the replying respondents, tender unconditional and unqualified apology for not obeying any of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court and hence, pray before this Hon'ble Court that the show cause notices issued against all the respondents in the contempt petitions may kindly be discharged and justice be done. 2. That the replying respondents have implemented the directions passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP(T) No. 634/2008 titled as Rattan Singh versus H.P. University and another and connected petitions, in letter and spirit. As per the directions given in CWP(T) No. 634/2008 titled as Rattan Singh versus H.P. University and another and connected petitions, the University authorities were only directed to consider the petitioners’ case for continuation of the Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies herein after referred to as IIHS, as a Permanent Multi Disciplinary Research Institute of the H.P. University and also the issue of their continuation/absorption/regularization therein. In sequel to the said directions, the University authorities had passed the office order on 09.09.2014, when the services of the petitioners were regularized. Thereafter they petitioners have been granted the revised pay scales from 16-03-2015, as per notification dated 06-08-2015. In contempt petition No. 278/2015 titled as Dr. Bhawani Singh versus Professor Mohan Jharta and connected petitions, the directions were only given to decide the representations made by petitioners. As a sequel to the said directions, the replying respondent No. 3 has passed an order on 05.12.2015 when the revised pay scales have been ordered to be granted w.e.f. 09.09.2014. Hence, there is no disobedience of any of the direction passed by this Hon'ble Court either issued in the Writ petitions or in the contempt petitions. Still the replying respondents tender unconditional and unqualified apology for any violation of the directions passed by this Hon'ble Court and further crave the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to drop the contempt proceedings and justice be done.” 4. Perusal of aforesaid reply suggests that judgment dated 18.4.2012 passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 634/2008 and connected matters has been complied with by the respondents. 5. This Court, solely with a view to ascertain the corrections of the aforesaid claim/submissions of the respondents, closely perused judgment dated 18.4.2012, passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 634/2008, which is reproduced below: “6. Consequently, present petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondent-University to consider the petitioners’ case for continuation of the Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies as a permanent Multi Disciplinary Research Institute of the Himachal Pradesh University and also the issue of their continuance/absorption/regularization therein. All consequential benefits shall be made available to the petitioners once a decision is finally taken by the respondent-University. Needful be positively done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It is open for the petitioners to bring out their individual grievances to the respondent-authorities which shall also be considered within the aforesaid period.” 6. Tone and tenor of aforesaid direction suggest that petition was disposed of with direction to the respondent-University to consider the petitioner’s case for continuation of Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies as Permanent Multi Disciplinary Research Institute of Himachal Pradesh University and also to consider issue of continuance/absorption/regularization of petitioners therein. Tone and tenor of aforesaid direction suggest that petition was disposed of with direction to the respondent-University to consider the petitioner’s case for continuation of Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies as Permanent Multi Disciplinary Research Institute of Himachal Pradesh University and also to consider issue of continuance/absorption/regularization of petitioners therein. Court further observed that all consequential benefits would also be made available to the petitioners once decision is taken by the respondent-University. It clearly emerges from the record that pursuant to aforesaid directions, Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 2.7.2012 decided that Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies would be made Permanent Multi Disciplinary Research Institute of Himachal Pradesh University and same would be made a regular department of the University, if State Government takes responsibility to disburse salary and allowance etc. of the employees working therein. Subsequently, respondents, herein informed this Court in Contempt Petition No. 581/2012, that Committee has been constituted by Executive Council in its meeting held on 12.7.2013 to explore the possibility of continuation of the Institute. Accordingly, this Court disposed of the Contempt Petition by concluding that nothing further requires to be done in the petition and if there is any cause of action available, petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy, which would be considered on its own merits. After passing of order dated 24.7.2013, respondent-University issued Notifications dated 24.3.2014 and 10.6.2014 deciding therein to regularize all the staff of Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies on the posts and salary as received by them, with further decision to create posts. Subsequently, vide notification dated 9.9.2014, University regularized petitioners and placed the notification on record with the reply to contempt petition, whereby petitioners were regularized against posts they were holding in the Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies before taking over by University on 10.6.2014. 7. We, after having perused all the directions contained in judgment dated 18.4.2012 passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 634/2008 and connected matters as well as reply to the show cause notice, are fully convinced and satisfied that aforesaid judgment and subsequent orders have been duly complied with, though belatedly. This Court finds no force in the arguments of Mr. We, after having perused all the directions contained in judgment dated 18.4.2012 passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 634/2008 and connected matters as well as reply to the show cause notice, are fully convinced and satisfied that aforesaid judgment and subsequent orders have been duly complied with, though belatedly. This Court finds no force in the arguments of Mr. Anand Sharma that in terms of aforesaid judgment, respondent-University was bound to regularize services of the petitioners after completion of six years i.e. in 2010-11, because, admittedly, decision if any, to take over Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies by the University was taken by the Executive Council of the University on 2.7.2012, subject to State taking responsibility of disbursing salary and allowances etc. of all the employees working therein. But the fact remains that respondent-University, after passing order dated 24.7.2013 in Contempt Petition, issued Notifications dated 24.3.2014 and 10.6.2014, which were subsequently superseded by Notification dated 2.8.2014, deciding therein that staff of Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies, be regularized on the present posts and salaries as being received by them and posts be created. 8. Perusal of annexure R-1/E, Notification dated 2.8.2014, shows that pursuant to decision of the Executive Council, and, as per proposal for creation of posts and pay scales submitted by Director, IIHS (UGC Centre for Excellence), HP University, duly approved by the Vice-Chancellor, posts of research staff (i.e. Senior Research Officer, Research Officer and Project Officers) were ordered to be created. Since the posts as referred herein above in the Permanent Multi Disciplinary Research Institute of Himachal Pradesh University were ordered to be created vide order dated 2.8.2014, claim as put forth by the petitioners that they are entitled to regularization after completion of six years of service i.e. 2010-11, can not be granted in the present contempt petitions. Vide judgment dated 18.4.2012, respondent-University was only directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for continuation of Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies as Permanent Multi Disciplinary Research Institute of Himachal Pradesh University and also issue of continuation/absorption/regularization of petitioners therein. Vide judgment dated 18.4.2012, respondent-University was only directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for continuation of Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies as Permanent Multi Disciplinary Research Institute of Himachal Pradesh University and also issue of continuation/absorption/regularization of petitioners therein. Though, the University decided to make Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies a Permanent Multi Disciplinary Research Institute of Himachal Pradesh University on 2.7.2012, decision with regard to creation of posts against which petitioners were posted in erstwhile Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies was finally taken on 2.8.2014 vide annexure R-1/E, wherein, for the first time, posts of Senior Research Officer, Research Officer and Project Officers were created, as such, this Court, after careful perusal of Notification dated 22.8.2016, annexure R-1/G sees no force in the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioners, that they have not been granted consequential benefits after creation of Permanent Multi Disciplinary Research Institute, rather, scrutiny of aforesaid notification clearly suggests that services of present petitioners have been regularized with effect from 9.9.2014, in supersession of Notification dated 6.8.2015, and their pay has also been fixed as per Fitment Tables No. 1, 2 and 3, notified vide Notification dated 16.10.2009/corrigendum dated 19.10.2009. 9. This Court can not grant any relief over and above which was prayed in the original writ petition. 10. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. V. Gautam Goswami reported in (2008) 5 SCC 339 have held as under: “33. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act or Article 129 of the Constitution of India must strive to give effect to the directions issued by this Court. When the claim of the parties had been adjudicated upon and has attained finality, it is not open for any party to go behind the said orders and seek to take away and/or truncate the effect thereof. [See T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan (1995) 5 SCC 619 ] 34. In Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2004) 7 SCC 261 ], this Court held: "5. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. In Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2004) 7 SCC 261 ], this Court held: "5. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. It was furthermore observed: "6. On the question of impossibility to carry out the direction, the views expressed in T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan need to be noted. It was held that when the claim inter se had been adjudicated and had attained finality, it is not open to the respondent to go behind the orders and truncate the effect thereof by hovering over the rules to get around the result, to legitimise legal alibi to circumvent the order passed by a court." 35. Moreover undertakings had been given by the respondents before this Court from time to time. What they have done or intend to do is only the compliance thereof. The petitioner had to wait for a long time to get the fruits of requisition made by it for acquisition of land. The lands were acquired in 1983 on the basis of the requisition made by it in 1973. 11. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran reported in (2014) 3 SCC 373 have held as under: “15. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor the plea of equities can be considered. Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others[3], V.M.Manohar Prasad vs. N. Ratnam Raju and Another[4], Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Gautam Goswami and Others[5] and Union of India and Others vs. Subedar Devassy PV[6].” 12. Before concluding, we are constrained to observe that despite there being numerous directions, as noticed in the show cause notices, responsible officers manning decision-making posts, sat over the matter purposely and intentionally, solely with a view to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioners. Had the petitioners not come to this Court by way of present contempt petitions, probably, they would have been denied rightful claim as extended to them vide Notification dated 2.8.2014. Had the petitioners not come to this Court by way of present contempt petitions, probably, they would have been denied rightful claim as extended to them vide Notification dated 2.8.2014. Normally, after seeing the conduct of the respondents, this Court would not have shown any lenience to the officers concerned but after taking into consideration the latest reply to the show cause notice, wherein they have tendered unconditional apology for not obeying the direction of this court, this court drops the notice of contempt issued against the respondents. However, they are cautioned to remain more vigilant and prompt, in future, while discharging their duties. 13. In view of the above, all the contempt petitions are disposed of. Contempt notices issued to the respondents are dropped. Pending applications, if any, in all the petitions, are also disposed of.