JUDGMENT Per: Walia, J. 1. Instant petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for willfully flouting the judgment of this Court dated 19.08.2010 passed in LPASW No. 347/2000, No.348/2000, No. 37/2001 & No. 27/2006, with a prayer for punishing the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant petition are that the petitioners joined the MES Department as Valveman on different dates in the scale of Rs. 210-290. Petitioners and some other Valvemen of MES Department working under different Garrison Engineers filed SWP No. 1393/1994, in case titled 'Amar Nath & others v. Union of India and Ors.' seeking following relief: - "Mandamus whereby directing the respondents to convert the category of petitioners/valvemans from semi-skilled to skilled one and accordingly place them in grade of Rs.260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1981." 3. That the aforementioned writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 12.03.1997. Operative part of the said judgment is reproduced here-under - "Therefore this writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to extend the same relief by placing them under skilled category in the grade of Rs. 260-400 from 16.10.1981." 4. That the decision of this Court dated 12.03.1997 in SWP No. 1393/1994, was challenged by way of time barred LPA, which was dismissed vide judgment/order dated 12.03.1999. 5. That on dismissal vide judgment and order dated 12.03.1999 of LPA No.IA-01/1997, the judgment and order dated 12.03.1997 rendered by the learned single bench in SWP No. 1393/1994, in case titled as Amar Nath and 34 others stood affirmed. Petitioners of SWP No. 1393/1994 are respondent Nos. 1 to 35 in LPASW No. 27/2006. 6. That on dismissal of time barred LPA No. IA-01/1997, orders were passed by the respondents for implementation of judgment of the learned single bench in SWP No. 1393/1994 by placing the applicants in the Skilled category in the grade of Rs.260-400 with effect from 16.10.1981 subject to review and recovery on the outcome of SLP against order dated 12.03.1997 in SWP No. 1393/1994 and 12.03.1999 in LPA No. IA-01/1997. 7. That other Valvemen under different Garrison Engineers within and outside the State of Jammu & Kashmir filed similar writ petitions before this Court as well as other High Courts/ Central Administrative Tribunals on the basis of the judgment rendered in SWP No. 1393/1994. 7. That other Valvemen under different Garrison Engineers within and outside the State of Jammu & Kashmir filed similar writ petitions before this Court as well as other High Courts/ Central Administrative Tribunals on the basis of the judgment rendered in SWP No. 1393/1994. The Valvemen in the other writ petitions/OAs won their case upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereupon the department implemented the judgment by placing said Valvemen in the grade of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1981. 8. That after the dismissal of LPA No. IA-01/1997, in case titled as 'Union of India and Ors. v. Amar Nath and others' a number of writ petitions were filed before the High Court by similarly situated employees seeking up gradation from semi skilled grade of Rs. 210-290 to the skilled grade of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1981. SWP No. 2758/1999 preferred by one Mohan Lal and ten others was allowed by the learned single bench vide judgment dated 21.02.2000 by holding that the petitioners therein were entitled to the same relief as was granted in SWP No. 1393/1994. Likewise, two other writ petitions bearing SWP Nos. 1351/1999 and 2272/1999 preferred by Ram Dass & 94 others and Aya Singh & 31 others respectively were disposed of by the learned Writ Court vide judgment dated 23.07.1999 and 15.10.1999 respectively granting the same relief as in SWP No. 1393/1994. Decision of the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 2758/1999 , was assailed by way of LPASW No. 347/2000 while LPASW No. 37/2001 and LPASW No. 348/2000 were filed against the judgments in SWP Nos. 1351/1999 and 2272/1999. 9. That SWP No. 1393/1994 had been allowed by the learned Single Bench vide judgment dated 12.03.1997 by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 31.07.1991 in Writ Petition No. 40 of 1991 wherein ratio of decision in 'Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.' AIR 1989 SC 1215 was applied and relief granted to all 35 writ petitioners i.e. respondents in LPASW No. 27/2006 by directing the Union of India and others i.e. appellants in LPASW No. 27/2006 to place the petitioners in the skilled category in the grade of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1981 within a period of two months from the date of decision. 10. That the decision of the Division Bench in LPA No. IA-01/1997 in case titled 'Union of India and Ors. 260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1981 within a period of two months from the date of decision. 10. That the decision of the Division Bench in LPA No. IA-01/1997 in case titled 'Union of India and Ors. v. Amar Nath and others' dated 12.03.1999 was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which vide order dated 06.10.2005 allowed Civil Appeal No. 5825 of 2000, in case titled as 'Union of India v. Amar Nath and others' against the decision of the Letters Patent Bench in LPASW No. IA-1/1997 and the matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. 11. That LPASW No.347/2000, 348/2000, 37/2001 were heard along with matter remanded by Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. LPASW No. 27/2006 i.e. Union of India and Ors. v. Amar Nath & Ors. 2010 (3) JKJ 564 [HC]. Vide judgment and order dated 19.08.2010 the Division Bench held that the respondents/writ petitioners were undisputedly performing the duties assigned to skilled workers, therefore were entitled to skilled grade of Rs.260-400 with effect from 16.10.1981 in the light of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Pursuant thereto, order Annexure-D dated 05.01.2012 was passed by the department granting sanction for placing Valveman in the skilled grade of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment/date of promotion as Valveman or 16.10.1981 whichever was later. The re-fixation of pay was ordered on notional basis with actual arrears restricted to 18 months from the date of filing of respective OAs. However, petitioners aggrieved against non compliance with the judgment (Annexure-C) dated 19.08.2010, filed COA(LPA) No.05/2012 c/w COA(LPA) No. 21/2012 and vide order (Annexure-E) dated 31.03.2015, the Hon'ble Division Bench observed that order dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure-D) was in disobedience of the order of this Court but a chance was given to the respondents to comply with the Court order within one week. Thereupon, the respondents - department issued order (Annexure-F) dated 13.04.2015 whereby earlier order dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure-D) was amended giving arrears w.e.f. 16.10.1981. 12. The stand of the petitioners is that after the passing of order dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure-D), the petitioners were provided the benefit of 1st ACP and 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 5000-8000 respectively, while petitioner No. 16 was given the benefit of 3rd MACP by placing him in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 5000-8000 respectively, while petitioner No. 16 was given the benefit of 3rd MACP by placing him in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4600 and he was also given the status of MCM whereas petitioner Nos. 19, 21, 22 and 23 to 28 were only given the benefit of 1st ACP. It is further the stand of the petitioners that after the issuance of order dated 13.04.2015 and disposal of Contempt Petition No. 21/2012, vide order dated 15.04.2015, the petitioners, were enjoying the benefit of 1st and 2nd ACP and also 3rd MACP (only by petitioner No. 16) in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 with GP of Rs.2400, Rs. 5000-8000 with GP of Rs. 4200 and Rs. 9300-34800 with GP of Rs. 4600 respectively while being extended the benefit of order dated 13.04.2015 vide which arrears were to be released w.e.f. 16.10.1981 but respondent No. 5 issued order dated 03.08.2015 directing all the Garrison Engineers under his command to pay benefit of 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and MACP 3rd in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with GP of Rs.2800 with further direction to recover all other benefits wrongly granted while implementing Division Bench judgment dated 19.08.2010 in view of communication (Annexure-H) dated 31.10.2007 i.e. prior to the judgment dated 19.08.2010 containing the plea that although the petitioners/valve-man had been granted the skilled grade of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1981 but till date petitioners had not been authoritatively placed in the category of skilled grade of valveman. 13. That order (Annexure-G) dated 03.08.2015 has been attacked by the petitioners on the ground that the observation of respondent No.5 in the said order that petitioners/valveman were not skilled worker was contemptuous, therefore, respondents had rendered themselves liable for contempt of Court. It has further been contended that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 19.08.2010 in the connected LPAs, it was laid down in unequivocal terms that the petitioners/valvemen were undisputedly performing the duties as were assigned to skilled worker, as such were entitled to the skilled grade of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1981. It has further been contended that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 19.08.2010 in the connected LPAs, it was laid down in unequivocal terms that the petitioners/valvemen were undisputedly performing the duties as were assigned to skilled worker, as such were entitled to the skilled grade of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1981. Grievance is that despite judgment of the Division Bench dated 19.08.2010, the respondents were effecting recovery of benefits from the petitioners, which they were receiving from 1999 onwards till date by treating them still to be in the semi skilled category and that not only were benefits received by the petitioners from the year 1999 onwards being recovered from the petitioners but even the salary of the petitioners had been re-fixed in the lower pay scales and lower pay bands. It has further been averred that issuance of order dated 03.08.2015 on the plea that the petitioners/valveman were still falling in the semi skilled category though working in the skilled grade w.e.f. 16.10.1981 was an act of willfully playing with the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench, which undoubtedly amounted to contempt, therefore, the respondents had rendered themselves liable for contempt of Court. 14. Statements of facts has been filed, inter alia, contending that 13 out of 30 petitioners had filed OANo. 061/00060/2015, titled ‘Anil Kumar and others v. Union of India and others' before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, challenging order dated 03.08.2015, in which, operation of the order had been stayed vide order (Anhexure R1) dated 23.09.2015 till next date of hearing. Likewise, four other petitioners had filed OA No. 061/00063/2015, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, which was also pending, therefore, contempt petition was liable to be dismissed. 15. That it has further been contended that contents of order dated 03.08.2015 on its plain reading does not constitute contempt of Court, therefore, proceedings were liable to be dropped at the threshold. It has also been contended that the contents of the contempt petition were false because in compliance to order dated 31.03.2015 passed in COA(LPA) No.21/2012, judgment dated 19.08.2012 had been implemented and the Valveman had been treated as belonging to the skilled category and were granted grade of Rs. 260-400 (as admissible to skilled worker) w.e.f. 16.10.1981 and had been paid the due amount accordingly and nothing was outstanding as evident from certificate of drawing & disbursing officers i.e. Annexure-R3. 260-400 (as admissible to skilled worker) w.e.f. 16.10.1981 and had been paid the due amount accordingly and nothing was outstanding as evident from certificate of drawing & disbursing officers i.e. Annexure-R3. 16. That it has further been averred in paragraph No. 9 of the statement of facts that the petitioners had been placed in the skilled grade of Rs. 260-400, but while preparing the due/drawn statement, it came to light that excess payment had been made to some of the petitioners, therefore, their pay has been re-fixed and the petitioners had been granted skilled grade of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1981 as evident from certificate (Annexure-R3) duly signed by AGE/GE/AO. It is the categorical stand of the respondents that while the petitioners had been placed in the skilled grade of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1981, recovery had been initiated due to wrong fixation of pay. It has also been categorically denied that the petitioners had been treated as Semi skilled worker or that they had been placed in a grade other than skilled grade. It is further contended that the allegation that the petitioners were being treated as semi skilled was absolutely false because there was nothing in letter dated 03.08.2015 indicating that the petitioners were being treated as semi skilled as alleged and that the letter dated 03.08.2015 was very clear and unambiguous and merely directed the concerned officials to work out the financial effect of grade of Rs. 260-400 from 16.10.1981 while contents of paragraph No. 4 of letter dated 03.08.2015 were stated to be independent of the judgment being administrative in nature. 17. That relevant extract of order dated 23.09.2015 in OA No. 061/00060/2015, in case titled 'Anil Kumar & others v. Union of India and others' is reproduced hereunder- "1 xxx 4. 5. The impugned order dated 03.08.2015 (Annexure A-l) shall stand stayed till the next date of hearing to the extent it relates to recoveries and adjustment of the over payment made to the applicant.." - 18. That a perusal of the details given in the preceding paragraphs reveals the categorical stand of the respondents of the petitioner having been given the skilled grade pay-scale of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1981 and of order dated 03.08.2015 i.e. Annexure-G being wrongly interpreted to contend that the petitioners were being treated as semi skilled whereas there was nothing in the aforesaid order to support the contention of the petitioners. 260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1981 and of order dated 03.08.2015 i.e. Annexure-G being wrongly interpreted to contend that the petitioners were being treated as semi skilled whereas there was nothing in the aforesaid order to support the contention of the petitioners. It has been further contended that certain excess payment made to the petitioners while placing them in the skilled grade of Rs.260-400 was only sought to be recovered. Besides, order dated 03.08.2015 had been challenged by way of OA No. 061/00060/2015, titled as 'Anil Kumar and others V. Union of India and others' and OA No. 061/00063/2015, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, leading to passing of order Annexure-R1, dated 23.09.2015 staying the operation of order dated 03.08.2015 till the next date of hearing. It has been vehemently contended that in view of the aforementioned OAs having been filed challenging the order dated 03.08.2015 and it being the categorical stand of the respondents that the petitioners/valveman had been placed in the skilled grade scale of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 16.10.1981 and had been paid arrears and only recovery of excess payment made over and above entitlement of the petitioners on their being placed in the skilled grade of Rs. 260-400 was sought to be made, order dated 03.08.2015 had been stayed by the CAT, therefore, the contempt petition was nothing but a gross misuse of the process of law with the sole objective of applying pressure tactics/coercive measures to obtain benefits otherwise than as per entitlement. 19. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are of the considered view that for the reasons as recorded above, no contempt is made out. However, nothing said in this order shall be taken as an expression on merits in view of the petitioners/Valvemen having filed OA No. 061/00060/2015 & OA No. 063/00060/1015, in which the operation of order dated 03.08.2015 has been stayed on 23.09.2015. The rights of the parties would be subject to decision of the aforementioned OAs pending adjudication before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Contempt Petition stands disposed of in aforementioned terms. Petition disposed of