ORDER : The basis of the present case under the Contempt of Courts Act is the alleged breach and non-compliance to the order dated 14.07.2014 passed by this Court whereby there was a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for revision of pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits. 2. We have heard Mr. Padmanabha Kedilaya V., learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. D. Nagaraj, learned AGA appearing for the accused. 3. We may record that the direction which has been pressed in service at paragraph-4 of the aforesaid order dated 14.07.2014 reads as under: “4. The date of revision salary paid on 01.01.2006 is made available to the petitioner as on date of retirement on 30.04.2008 by the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.15175/2009 the salary has been fixed taking into consideration the revision of salary that is taking into account pending arrears on the basis of the last pay drawn, which has not been paid by the respondents. Hence the prayer of the petitioner is considered by directing the respondents to calculate pensionary benefits, DCRG on the basis of last pay drawn taking into account the revision of pay scale from 1.1.2006 to 30.04.2008 and to pass appropriate orders. If the order of the respondent Government provides, then he is also entitled for 6 percent interest for his arrears” 4. In response to the process issued by this Court initially on behalf of the accused, it was submitted that the compliance is already made and no additional pension is payable. However, subsequently, on behalf of the complainant, certain decisions of the Apex Court were pressed in service to advance the cause of the complainant that if the aforesaid decisions are taken into consideration, the complainant would be entitled to the revision in pensionary and other consequential benefits. 5. The accused thereafter were further called upon to consider the same and to take appropriate decision. Ultimately the counter-affidavit has been filed on 30.08.2017 on behalf of the accused, wherein the endorsement dated 29.08.2017 is produced on record and as per the said endorsement, the substance of the decision is that the complainant was working as the Teacher in the institution maintained by the State fund and therefore he is not entitled for revision of the pension at par with the institution maintained by Central fund or UGC. It has also been decided that in light of the aforesaid factual condition, the decision of the Apex Court upon which reliance has been placed by the complainant in the case of U. Raghavendra Acharya and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported at AIR 2006 SC 2145 , is of no help to the complainant and ultimately, it is found that the pensionary benefits are already settled in terms of the State norms/Rules and therefore the request for additional revision or payment of penalty gratuity benefit cannot be accepted and hence rejected. 6. It is in light of the aforesaid fact situation, we need to examine as to whether the contempt can be said to have been constituted or not. 7. The attempt on the part of the learned Counsel for the complainant was to contend that if the direction issued by this Court is not reasonably considered or is not considered in light of the decision of the Apex Court in case of U. Raghavendra Acharya (supra) or is arbitrarily considered, the contempt could be said to have been constituted. As per him, the Government Circular for which the revision of the pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits is to be granted are also not considered. He therefore submitted that this Court may deal with the accused for alleged breach of the contempt. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court as well as of this Court for supporting his contentions. 8. In our view, in none of the decisions, it has been held that the Teachers who have retired from State funded institution would be entitled to the same revision of pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits, at par with the teachers who have retired from central funded institution/institution governed by the UGC. When the decision is based on the aforesaid consideration and when such aspects have not been examined by this Court in the order dated 14.07.2014 which is the basis of the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, we do not find that if the accused have declined to revise the pension and other benefits on the aforesaid premises, such could be said as an intentional breach of the order sought to be canvassed. 9. 9. In our view, the contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, wherein each word will have a meaning because it is to result into serious consequences of imposition of punishment and/or a sentence upon the contemnor. In normal circumstances, no word can be added nor the order can be stretched for constituting contempt unless on the face of it, the words are clear and the defiance is also demonstrated. If we go by the letters of the order, we do not find that it would constitute contempt on the ground as sought to be canvassed. 10. Apart from the above, even if we consider the contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant that the order is to be reasonably interpreted and is also to be interpreted to be enforced in light of the legal position settled by the Apex Court, then also we find that when in none of the judgments the distinction of revision of pension on account of the State funded institution and the Central funded institution is considered, and when in the present case, the case of the complainant is not accepted on account of such distinction, it cannot be said that any contempt is constituted. 11. At this stage, we may also find it appropriate to record that if the complainant finds that the decision or endorsement dated 29.08.2017 issued by the competent authority is not in accordance with the statutory provision or if the complainant finds that he is aggrieved by the decision dated 29.08.2017 of the authority, it would be for the complainant to challenge the same by way of a substantive petition in a writ jurisdiction, wherein the Court may examine the rights and contentions of both the parties and may rule as to whether the complainant is entitled to the revision of pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits at par with teachers of the Centrally funded institutions or not. But such grievance in our view cannot be entertained in a case under the Contempt of Courts Act. 12. In view of the above, subject to the aforesaid observation, we are not inclined to continue the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Hence disposed of accordingly. But such grievance in our view cannot be entertained in a case under the Contempt of Courts Act. 12. In view of the above, subject to the aforesaid observation, we are not inclined to continue the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Hence disposed of accordingly. However, it is observed that if any substantive proceedings are resorted to by the complainant for challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the authority/accused, the rights and contentions of both the sides shall remain open to be considered in accordance with law.