JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.—Heard Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.N. Saxena, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Jagdev Singh for the opposite party. 2. This contempt is preferred for punishing the opposite party for committing wilful disobedience of orders dated 11.8.2006 passed in C.M.W.P.’s No. 2187 of 1997 and 33238 of 2000 and in Special Appeals No. 1290 and 1291 both of 2006 dated 13.1.2016. 3. A dispute is sought to be raised by the applicant in respect of regularization on the post of one Anoop Bihari Lal Srivastava (short ABLS), in the following manner : ABLS appears to have been engaged sometimes in 1988 as a daily-wager in North Central Zone Cultural Centre, Allahabad (NCZCC), whose services came to be disengaged on 26.12.1990, whereafter he raised an industrial dispute and an award dated 28.2.1995 came to be passed in his favour directing the opposite party to reinstate him with arrears of salary and other benefits. The award dated 28.2.1995 was challenged by NCZCC in C.M.W.P. No. 19784 of 1995, which was dismissed on 8.9.1995. It appears that ABLS was again engaged as a daily-wager on or about 4.1.1996. He filed C.M.W.P. No. 31585 of 1996 claiming regularization as UDC w.e.f, 23.3.1988, which came to be disposed of on 4.10.1996 directing the competent authority to dispose of his representation dated 19.3.1996 with a further direction that it would be open for the opposite parties to consider not only regularization, but also subsequent promotion, if due under law/rules. Pursuant thereto, the then Director, NCZCC on 11.11.1996 rejected the representation of ABLS dated 19.3.1996. He challenged the order dated 11.11.1996 in CMWP No. 2187 of 1997. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Executive Board on 19.4.2000 regularized the services of ABLS as Section Officer, in the pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10500, which came to be communicated to him on 19.7.2000. The applicant alongwith one Pradeep Jauhari challenged the regularization dated 19.7.2000 of ABLS in CMWP No. 33238 of 2000. Both the writ petitions, i.e, Writ Petition No. 2187 of 1997 and 33238 of 2000 came to be decided by a common judgment on 11.8.2006, wherein the Writ Petition No. 2187 of 1997 filed by ABLS was dismissed and that of the applicant, i.e, Writ Petition No. 33238 of 2000 was allowed and the order of regularization dated 19.7.2000 of ABLS was set aside. ABLS preferred two Special Appeal Nos. 1290 and 1291, both of 2006, which came to be decided on 6.11.2006, the operative part of the order is extracted hereunder : “We, therefore, modify the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge to the extent that it would be open to the appellant to prefer representation before the Executive Board of NCZCC making a prayer for regularization on the post he was engaged and is continuing and in case such a representation is made within four weeks alongwith a certified copy of this order before the Executive Board, it shall examine the grievance of the appellant and dispose of the aforesaid representation taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi (Supra) and other judgments referred to hereinabove, and shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. It is needless to say that the Executive Board shall pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner-appellant within the aforesaid period. With the aforesaid modification in the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge, the appeals are finally disposed of.” 4. It is not disputed that order dated 6.11.2006 attained finality. ABLS filed a representation claiming regularization of his services as UDC with all consequential benefits, which came to be rejected on 17.5.2007. Copy of the order dated 17.5.2007 is supplied by the learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record. ABLS challenged the order dated 17.5.2007 in C.M.W.P. No. 29318 of 2007, in an order came to be passed on 4.5.2012. The order dated 4.5.2012 is as under : “Both the parties are present. This Court had passed an order on the petition that the Executive Board may take a decision in the matter with regard to the the status of the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 4th of July, 2007. The Executive Board has taken a decision on 20.11.07 which has been brought on record by the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order dated 20.11.07 does not disclose reasons for passing an order whereby simply the petitioner has been continued on fixed salary of Rs. 10,000/- under North Central Zone Cultural Centre, Allahabad. Rule 2(b) provides as hereunder. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order dated 20.11.07 does not disclose reasons for passing an order whereby simply the petitioner has been continued on fixed salary of Rs. 10,000/- under North Central Zone Cultural Centre, Allahabad. Rule 2(b) provides as hereunder. : “b) All the employees who were in service of NCZCC before the commencement of these Rules shall on such commencement be deemed to have been appointed under the provisions of these Rules to the corresponding post in the schedule A to be specified, whenever necessary, by the Director. “ One fact has not been denied by the respondent that the petitioner has worked continuously from the year 1988. The Executive Board may pass a fresh order in accordance with Rule 2 B. within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before it. The Executive Board may give reasons for the order dated 20.11.07 and the appropriate authority, under rules, may pass an order in accordance with Rule 2(b). A copy of this order may be placed before the Executive Board within a period of one week from today.” 5. Pursuant thereto, the Director rejected the claim of ABLS both for regularizing as UDC and promotion as Section Officer on 9.11.2012. The order dated 9.11.2012 came to be challenged by ABLS by an amendment in his pending writ petition. The opposite party on 13.1.2016 again passed an order, but now regularizing the services of ABLS as Section Officer w.e.f, 25.7.2003, i.e, the date of adoption of Service Rules of 2003. 6. It is submitted by Sri Jain, learned counsel for the applicant assiduously that once the claim of ABLS was considered by the Director on 9.11.2012, whereby his both claims for regularization as UDC and promotion as Section Officer were considered, and rejected, then a fresh order being passed on 13.1.2016 taking an absolute somersault from an earlier stand is contemptuous and in willful defiance. 7. 7. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel opposed the submission on the ground that the order dated 13.1.2016 too is in compliance to the order dated 4.5.2012, but as the Writ-Court on 4.5.2012 had directed the Executive Board to take a decision in the light of Rule 2(b), whereas the earlier order dated 9.11.2012 was passed on the premise that his case was covered under Rule 2-A, subsequently, the order dated 13.1.2016 was passed to make it compatible with the order of the Writ-Court dated 4.5.2012. He further submits that it is not open for the applicant to challenge the correctness/propriety of the order dated 13.1.2016 by way of contempt. 8. The order dated 11.8.2006 is not of much consequence to the applicant as the entire scenario stood altered after the order dated 4.5.2012 came to be pressed on the Writ Petition filed by ABLS, wherein a direction was issued to the Executive Board to pass fresh orders in accordance with Rule 2-B, which were not brought on record at the time of order dated 11.8.2006. The order dated 9.11.2012 proceeded to consider the claim of ABLS from the perspective of Rule 2-A of 2003 Rules and rejected the same both for regularization as UDC and promotion as Section Officer on the ground that the case is not covered under Rule 2A. The subsequent order dated 13.1.2006 allegedly considers the case of ABLS under Rule 2A as was mandated under order dated 4.5.2012. 9. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions including the decisions of the Apex Court in Director of Education, Uttaranchal and others v. Ved Prakash Joshi, 2005 (3) UPLBEC 2415, and Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman & M.D, O.N.G.C v. M George Ravishankaran, AIR 2014 SC 950 , wherein it is held that once an order has come to be passed pursuant to the directions of the Court, it is not open for this Court to examine its correctness/propriety thereof. The order dated 13.1.2016 may be inappropriate/uncalled for/unwarranted/objectionable, but the same is not contemptuous. Once this is the admitted position, the contempt is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Remedy, if any, for the applicant is to assail the order dated 13.1.2016 before a competent forum, but subject to advice. 10. The contempt is dismissed in limine.