JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that earlier a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1881 of 2002 was instituted for getting several reliefs including pensionary benefits, challenging its calculation and dearness allowance etc. from certain cut-off date. The matter was decided by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure-1). 2. It further appears from the facts of the case that the said judgment was challenged by the Central Coal Field Limited in Letters Patent Appeal No. 228 of 2004. The Division Bench of this Court decided the said Letters Patent Appeal vide judgment and order dated 19.8.2005 (Annexure-1). The direction given by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph no. 21 reads as under:- "21. Consequently, in our view, the members of the appellant Association were entitled to any increase in the dearness relief as might have been recommended by the Wage-Board after the year 1991 and the respondents were riot justified in withholding such benefits from the members of the appellant Association. Therefore, the appeal must succeed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is set aside with a direction upon the respondents to fix up pension payable to the members of the appellant Association on the basis of the recommendations made by the Wage Board after 1991 and to pay to them revised pension and arrears on such basis." (Emphasis supplied) 3. In view of the aforesaid directions given by the Division Bench of this Court, the respondents have calculated the pension on the basis of office memorandum dated 2.5.2001 (Annexure-6). It also appears from the facts of the case that as per aforesaid direction given by the Division Bench of this Court, the recommendation of the Wage Board was to be appreciated and the respondents have also paid dearness allowance to non-executive officers with effect from 1.7.1996 and to executives with effect from 1.1.1992. 4. Counsel for the applicant (original appellant) submitted that the very basis of the calculation of the pension, ought to have been as per Annexure-5, Circular dated 27.10.1997, especially looking to Clause No. 4.1 thereof. Thus, there is a dispute about the methodology of the calculation of the pension. 5. 4. Counsel for the applicant (original appellant) submitted that the very basis of the calculation of the pension, ought to have been as per Annexure-5, Circular dated 27.10.1997, especially looking to Clause No. 4.1 thereof. Thus, there is a dispute about the methodology of the calculation of the pension. 5. There is also one more dispute raised by counsel for the applicant (original appellant), which is about increase in the pension amount, because of age factor of the original pensioners as per Annexure-11 filed in the Contempt Case (Civil) No. 156 of 2008, which is Government order for implementation of Pay-Commission recommendations for revision of pension, issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, New Delhi dated 1.9.2008. 6. In view of the aforesaid Annexure-11, especially looking to Clause No. 4.5 the additional quantum of pension has to be raised, looking to the age of the pensioners/family pensioners. This is the second contention raised in these contempt applications. 7. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is no wilful disobedience by the respondents of the order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 228 of 2004, judgment and order dated 19.8.2005. The respondents have already paid dearness allowance to the non-executives with effect from 1.7.1996 and to the executives with effect from 1.1.1992, as per Wage Board recommendations. Moreover, it appears that there is a dispute raised by these applicants about the calculation of the pension. This calculation of the pension can be challenged by these applicants by way of separate proceedings before the appropriate forum. 8. So far as enhancement in the amount of pension as per Central Government Circular dated 1.9.2008 (Annexure-11) is concerned, the respondents shall take into consideration this enhancement of the pension, looking to the age of the pensioners/family pensioners. 9. With the aforesaid observations, both these contempt applications are, hereby disposed of. 10. Every, violation of the order is not a contempt of this Court, unless the said violation is wilful disobedience. This element (wilful disobedience) is absent. 11. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan vs. Tarun Bajaj and Others, 2014 (2) JCR 236 (SC) : (2014) 16 SCC 204 , especially at paragraph no. 12 thereof, as under: "12. This element (wilful disobedience) is absent. 11. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan vs. Tarun Bajaj and Others, 2014 (2) JCR 236 (SC) : (2014) 16 SCC 204 , especially at paragraph no. 12 thereof, as under: "12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is wilful. The word wilful introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. Wilful means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona-fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct." (Emphasis supplied) 12. There can be difference of opinion about the calculation of the pension, even genuinely there can be a difference of calculation. Even bona-fide, also there can be difference in calculation and hence, even if, there is difference in calculation of the amount of pension, then also it cannot be said that there is a contempt of this Court committed by the respondents. Hence, these contempt applications are disposed of. 13. Liberty is reserved with these applicants to challenge the calculation of the amount of pension arrived at by the respondents. The challenge shall be made in accordance with law before appropriate forum. Petition disposed of.