JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of instant Contempt Petition (Civil) filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, petitioner has prayed that the contemnors/respondents may be punished for willful disobedience of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No.2709 of 2008, decided on 28.7.2010. 2. “Key facts”, as emerged from the record are that petitioner at first instance approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of original application, seeking directions to the respondents to grant her pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 w.e.f. 1.4.1986 as granted to similarly situated Staff Nurses. Aforesaid original application was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 19.11.1993, with the direction to the Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to consider and decide the same as representation, however fact remains that same was rejected by the concerned authority on 20.6.1994. 3. Being aggrieved with the rejection order dated 20.6.1994, petitioner again approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No.1915 of 1995. On the abolition of the learned Tribunal, above numbered original application came to be registered as CWP (T) No.2709 of 2008 before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 28.7.2010, allowed the aforesaid writ petition and passed the following directions:- “Consequently, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the release of the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 with effect from 1.4.1986 as per Annexure S-1 annexed with covering letter dated 9.4.1991 with interest @ 6% per annum. No costs.” 4. It further emerges from the record that despite the directions passed in the judgment dated 28.7.2010, respondents failed to comply with the same, compelling the present petitioner to file contempt petition bearing No.241 of 2011. During the pendency of aforesaid Contempt Petition, respondents preferred an appeal bearing LPA No.165 of 2011, titled as State of H.P. & others versus Smt. Damyanti Jairath, laying therein challenge to the judgment dated 28.7.2010, passed by learned Single Judge. During the pendency of aforesaid Contempt Petition, respondents preferred an appeal bearing LPA No.165 of 2011, titled as State of H.P. & others versus Smt. Damyanti Jairath, laying therein challenge to the judgment dated 28.7.2010, passed by learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.11.2013, dismissed the appeal by stating that:- “The state challenges the award passed by the learned Single Judge granting consideration of the case of the petitioner for the release of the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 with effect from 1.4.1986 as per Annexure S-1 annexed with covering letter dated 9.4.1991 with interest @ 6% per annum. The main ground urged before us is that there is only change in the designation of the staff nurse and there were no financial benefits attached. The learned Single Judge has considered this point in extent so in para-1 of the judgment and has rejected the consideration of the same, what has been urged before us. We find that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is only direction to consider. There can be no grievance as far as the direction for consideration is concerned. We are unable to find out any illegality in the order passed, subject matter of this appeal. Appeal dismissed.” 5. Since, despite aforesaid judgment having been passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.165 of 2011, respondents-contemnors failed to implement the judgment dated 28.7.2010, petitioner got issued legal notice to the respondents advising therein to implement the aforesaid judgment. But since nothing was done, he was again compelled to file Contempt Petition. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.7.2014 (Annexure C-5) respondent-department again rejected the case of the petitioner. Vide aforesaid order, respondents claimed that the case of the petitioner was examined in terms of the observations made by the Hon’ble Court in LPA No.165 of 2011 on 21.11.2013 and claim of Smt. Damyanti Jairath for release of higher inadmissible pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 w.e.f.1.4.1986, is not justified in the light of the given facts and circumstances of the case as well as notification of the Govt. issued from time to time with regard to the grant and revision of pay scales. Respondents further claimed that if the claim so advanced is considered, it would also lead to multiplicity of litigation besides there being a wrong precedence as also the huge burden on the State exchequer. 6. issued from time to time with regard to the grant and revision of pay scales. Respondents further claimed that if the claim so advanced is considered, it would also lead to multiplicity of litigation besides there being a wrong precedence as also the huge burden on the State exchequer. 6. Petitioner herein being aggrieved with the passing of the aforesaid order, again approached this Court by way of Contempt Petition bearing No.541 of 2014. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court after taking cognizance of the averments contained in the Contempt Petition as well as in order dated 22.7.2014 (Annexure C-5), disposed off the Contempt Petition vide order dated 1.1.2015, whereby respondents-contemnors were directed to comply with the directions, dated 28.7.2010, passed in CWP-T No.2709 of 2008, within six weeks and report compliance before the Registrar (Judicial). 7. Respondents-contemnors in compliance to aforesaid directions, filed compliance affidavit of Dr. R.K. Sharma, Director Health Services, who stated in his reply that as per the observations made by the Hon’ble Court in its judgment dated 21.11.2013 passed in LPA No.165 of 2011,matter was considered at length, and rejected by way of order dated 22.7.2014. Subsequent to passing of order dated 22.7.2014, petitioner again filed Execution Petition No.18 of 2015, seeking implementation and execution of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. This Court, vide order dated 22.3.2016 passed in Execution Petition No.18 of 2015, came to the conclusion that consideration order has been made on same basis, which cannot stand in the eyes of law. This Court vide aforesaid order, directed the respondents to pass fresh consideration order, keeping in view the directions issued by the Writ Court and upheld by the Division Bench in LPA. 8. Since, no order pursuant to the aforesaid directions passed by this Court in Execution Petition, was passed, petitioner approached this Court by way of present COPC No.229 of 2016. Pursuant to the notices issued to the respondents/proposed Contemnors, respondents No.1 and 2 filed reply stating therein that they are the law abiding citizens and cannot think of disobeying the directions issued by the Hon’ble Courts including this Court. Pursuant to the notices issued to the respondents/proposed Contemnors, respondents No.1 and 2 filed reply stating therein that they are the law abiding citizens and cannot think of disobeying the directions issued by the Hon’ble Courts including this Court. Aforesaid respondents specifically stated that there is no willful, intentional and deliberate disobedience of any orders passed by this Court on their part, nevertheless, if any act of the respondents in the matter is construed to be in disobedience of any orders of the Hon’ble Court, the respondents tender their unconditional and unqualified apology without offering any justification for the same. However, fact remains that the respondents reiterated that the case of the petitioner was considered afresh in the light of the order dated 22.3.2016, passed by this Court in Execution Petition No.18 of 2015, wherein direction was issued to implement and comply with the judgment dated 28.7.2010 passed in CWP-T No.2709 of 2008. 9. It is apt to reproduce para Nos.3 to 5 of preliminary submissions having been raised by the respondents in their reply to the instant Contempt Petition herein:- “3. That it is further submitted that in the meanwhile, the present petitioner had also filed COPC No.541/2014 for the alleged disobedience of the judgment dated 28.7.2010 passed in CWP(T) No.2709 of 2008, Annexure C-1, which COPC was disposed of in terms of order dated 1.1.2015, Annexure C-6, the compliance affidavit was also filed in the matter vide Annexure C-7, thereby placing on record the copy of the order Annexure C-5. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed an Execution Petition No.18/2015 for implementing the judgment dated 28.7.2010 passed in CWP(T) No.2709/2008 by the learned Single Judge, which was replied to on behalf of the respondents, where after the same disposed of in terms of the order dated 22.3.2016, Annexure C-8 in the matter. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed an Execution Petition No.18/2015 for implementing the judgment dated 28.7.2010 passed in CWP(T) No.2709/2008 by the learned Single Judge, which was replied to on behalf of the respondents, where after the same disposed of in terms of the order dated 22.3.2016, Annexure C-8 in the matter. 4. That it is submitted that the case of the petitioner has been considered afresh by the replying respondents on the basis of facts on record without making any repetition of the averments raised in the reply, in terms of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 22.3.2016 in Execution Petition No.18/2015, Annexure C-8, in consultation with the Advisory Department and after thorough consideration, the same stood rejected at Government level by way of passing fresh consideration order dated 21.7.2016, attested photocopy whereof is placed on record as Annexure R-1, for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the order dated 21.7.2016, Annexure R-1, being legal and valid, deserves to be upheld as good for all intents and purposes in the matter. 5. That it is submitted that there had/has never been any willful disobedience of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 28.7.2010, Annexure C-1, whereby the directions were given to consider the case of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the claim advanced by the petitioner was/is not legally sustainable on the basis of a settled Law of the Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in Hukum Chand Gupta Vs. Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and others, 2012(12) Supreme Court Cases 666 that there cannot be straitjacket formula for holding that two posts having the same nomenclature would have to be given the same pay scale. It has further been laid down in case, Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and others Vs. Manju Mathur and another, 2011(2) Supreme Court Cases 452, that similarity of designation or nature or quantum of work is not determinative of entitlement to equality in pay scales. Further, in case titled as State of Haryana and others Vs. Charanjit Singh and others etc, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 161, it has been held that the Principle of equal pay for equal work has no mechanical application in every case. Further, in case titled as State of Haryana and others Vs. Charanjit Singh and others etc, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 161, it has been held that the Principle of equal pay for equal work has no mechanical application in every case. Further the subject matter of the claim as advanced by the petitioner stood already adjudicated upon by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court vide its judgment dated 14.10.1996 passed in TA No.02/1991. All these legal prepositions and facts were also kept in view while passing the fresh consideration order dated 21.7.2016, Annexure R-1, in terms of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Court in Execution Petition No.18 of 2015 on 22.3.2016, Annexure C-8, which being just and proper needs to be upheld as good for all intents and purposes in the matter.” 10. In nutshell, the case of the respondents/proposed contemnors is that they have duly considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the directions, passed by learned Single Judge and thereafter by this Court, but the claim is not legally sustainable in the light of the law passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hukum Chand Gupta case supra; wherein it has been held that there cannot be straitjacket formula for holding that two posts having the same nomenclature would have to be given the same pay scale. Similarly, respondents placed reliance upon the case titled as Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and others supra, wherein it has been held that similarity of designation or nature or quantum of work is not determinative of entitlement to equality in pay scales. Respondents also referred the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as State of Haryana and others supra, wherein it has been held that the Principle of equal pay for equal work has no mechanical application in every case. 11. The present petitioner by way of counter affidavit to the aforesaid reply having been filed by the respondents, reiterated that once this Court has held her entitled for the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925, her claim cannot be allowed to be defeated on the flimsy grounds, as have been raised by the respondents in their reply. 11. The present petitioner by way of counter affidavit to the aforesaid reply having been filed by the respondents, reiterated that once this Court has held her entitled for the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925, her claim cannot be allowed to be defeated on the flimsy grounds, as have been raised by the respondents in their reply. Petitioner further claimed that the judgments, as have been mentioned in the reply, are not applicable to the facts of the present case and the respondents deserve to be dealt with strictly in accordance with the provisions of Contempt of Court for willful disobedience of judgment dated 28.7.2010, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP-T No.2709 of 2008. 12. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that respondents/proposed contemnors willfully and intentionally disobeyed the judgments/orders having been passed by this Court in various proceedings and as such, they deserve to be punished in accordance with the provisions contained in the Contempt of Court Act. Mr. Jairath, while referring to the order dated 21st July, 2016 (Annexure R-1) having been passed by Principal Secretary (Health) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, reported the compliance to the judgment dated 28.7.2010, passed in CWP-T No.2709 of 2008 as well as subsequent orders passed by this Court in Contempt Petition/Execution petition. He strenuously argued that there is no consideration at all because there is/are no discussion/reasons to justify that petitioner is not entitled to same pay scale, which is payable to other regularly Staff Nurses, as per notification annexed with letter dated 9.4.1991. While referring to the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, Mr. Jairath, forcibly contended that once conscious decision was taken by the State Government to designate only those ANMs, who had put in 20 years or more services as such under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Himachal Pradesh and once the ANMS were designated as Staff Nurses, they cannot be treated differently even though their initial qualification may be different. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Jairath, prayed that the respondents/proposed contemnors be punished for disobedience of the judgment in question. 13. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents/proposed contemnors stated that the judgment dated 28.7.2010, passed by learned Single Judge stands duly complied with and as such, present petition deserve to be dismissed. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Jairath, prayed that the respondents/proposed contemnors be punished for disobedience of the judgment in question. 13. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents/proposed contemnors stated that the judgment dated 28.7.2010, passed by learned Single Judge stands duly complied with and as such, present petition deserve to be dismissed. Learned Additional Advocate General while inviting the attention of this Court to the latest order dated 21st July, 2016, passed by Principal Secretary (Health) Government of Himachal Pradesh, contended that all the directions contained in the judgment dated 28.7.2010 as well as subsequent orders passed by this Court in Contempt Petition as well as Execution petition have been duly complied with. Learned Additional Advocate General, further contended that perusal of order dated 21st July, 2016 clearly suggests that the case of the petitioner was considered on the basis of facts as well as records, but in terms of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as mentioned above, consideration order, reliefs as prayed in the petition, could not be granted and was rightly rejected by the authorities. Apart from above, learned Additional Advocate General, further stated that there is/was no positive direction to pay same scale to the petitioner, which is payable to other Staff Nurses, rather direction was to consider the case of the petitioner. He further stated that even Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the LPA having been filed by the State, reiterated that there is only direction to consider the case of the petitioner. In the aforesaid background, learned Additional Advocate General, prayed that in view of the detailed order having been passed by the respondents, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 15. Perusal of judgment dated 28.7.2010, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No.2709 of 2008, clearly suggests that the petitioner, who was working as Female Health Worker (ANM) was allowed selection grade of Rs. 680-1120 vide order dated 29.4.1988. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 15. Perusal of judgment dated 28.7.2010, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No.2709 of 2008, clearly suggests that the petitioner, who was working as Female Health Worker (ANM) was allowed selection grade of Rs. 680-1120 vide order dated 29.4.1988. The petitioner along with similarly situate persons was designated as Staff Nurse vide office order dated 26.11.198, however petitioner was granted pay scale of Rs.1500-2640, whereas other Staff Nurses, who were in the pay scale of Rs.680- 1120 were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640 and Rs.1640-2925 in 50:50 ratio in terms of letter dated 9.4.1991. The petitioner, who claimed herself to be senior most Staff Nurse, assailed the aforesaid action of the respondents in granting her pay scale of Rs.1500-2640 instead of Rs.1640-2925 granted in favour of the other Staff Nurses. It emerges from the record that aforesaid pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 was denied to the petitioner by the respondents on the ground that she was not designated/appointed as ‘A’ Grade Nurse. Learned Single Judge while taking note of notification annexed with the letter dated 9.4.1991 came to the conclusion that conscious decision has been taken by the State Government as per Annexure A-2 to designate only those ANMs, who had put in 20 years or more service. Once the ANMs were designated as Staff Nurses, they cannot be treated differently, even though their initial qualification may be different. Learned Single Judge further concluded that once petitioner was designated as per office order dated 26.11.1998 as Staff Nurse, she was entitled to the same pay scale, which was payable to other regularly appointed Staff Nurses as per notification annexed along with letter dated 9.4.1991. 16. But perusal of aforesaid judgment passed by learned Single Judge, clearly suggests that learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended before the learned Single Judge that Court can only direct the consideration of the case and it cannot direct the respondents to pay a particular scale to particular category. Accordingly, learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition having been preferred by the present petitioner made following observations:- “It is well settled law that it is for the employer to grant pay scales after taking into consideration the qualifications, nature of duties and functions. Accordingly, learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition having been preferred by the present petitioner made following observations:- “It is well settled law that it is for the employer to grant pay scales after taking into consideration the qualifications, nature of duties and functions. However, it is equally well settled that while taking such decision, there should not be any arbitrariness or unreasonableness.” 17. Learned Single Judge while making aforesaid observations, also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.T. Veerappa and others versus State of Karnatka and others, (2006)9 Supreme Court Cases 406, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court specifically concluded that “however, it is also equally well settled that the Courts should interfere with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust or prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors”. Learned Single Judge drawing strength from the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for release of the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 w.e.f.1.4.1986 as per Annexure S-1 annexed with the letter dated 9.4.1991. 18. As has been noticed above, aforesaid judgment was taken into appeal by the respondents by way of LPA, wherein, Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal concluded that “we find that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is only direction to consider and there can be no grievance as far as direction for consideration is concerned.” Perusal of impugned judgment dated 21.11.2013, clearly suggests that the Division Bench of this Court had no occasion to consider the appeal on merits. 19. Accordingly, respondents-Department passed consideration order dated 22.7.2014, which was termed to be bad by this Court in its order dated 22.3.2016, passed in Execution Petition No.18 of 2015. This Court, while passing aforesaid order was of the view that the consideration order cannot stand and is virtually repetition of the reply filed by the respondents in the writ petition and as such, direction was issued to pass fresh consideration order. 20. The word “consideration” has been examined by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. National Textile Corpn. (Maharashtra North) Ltd. and others, (2002) 8 SCC 182 , wherein it was held as follows: “14. 20. The word “consideration” has been examined by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. National Textile Corpn. (Maharashtra North) Ltd. and others, (2002) 8 SCC 182 , wherein it was held as follows: “14. In view of the aforesaid requirements, before obtaining the assent of the President, the State Government has to point out that the law made by the State Legislature is in respect of one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List by mentioning entry/entries of the Concurrent List and that it contains provision or provisions repugnant to the law made by Parliament or existing law. Further, the words “reserved for consideration” would definitely indicate that there should be active application of mind by the President to the repugnancy pointed out between the proposed State law and the earlier law made by Parliament and the necessity of having such a law, in the facts and circumstances of the matter, which is repugnant to a law enacted by Parliament prevailing in a State. The word “consideration” would manifest that after careful thinking over and due application of mind regarding the necessity of having State law which is repugnant to the law made by Parliament, the President may grant assent.....” (p.197) 21. The word “consider” was scrutinized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530 and it was held: “19. The word “consider” is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order.” (p-537) 22. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, respondents/proposed contemnors passed fresh consideration order dated 21.7.2016 (Annexure R-1) placed on record with the reply. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order.” (p-537) 22. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, respondents/proposed contemnors passed fresh consideration order dated 21.7.2016 (Annexure R-1) placed on record with the reply. Perusal of order dated 21.7.2016, suggests that the case of the petitioner was considered afresh on the basis of records as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various cases, as have been detailed hereinabove, where it has been specifically concluded that there cannot be straitjacket formula for holding that two posts having the same nomenclature would have to be given the same pay scale. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also reiterated that similarity of designation or nature or quantum of work is not determinative of entitlement to equality in pay scales. 23. Leaving everything aside, this Court specifically took note of the fact that the appeal i.e. LPA No.165 of 2011 having been preferred by the respondents, whereby impugned judgment dated 28.7.2010, passed by learned Single Judge was not decided on merits and dismissed on the ground that there is only direction to consider, meaning thereby Division Bench was convinced and satisfied that there is/was no positive direction to grant reliefs in favour of the petitioner, as claimed in the petition. Observation, if any, made in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, clearly suggests that decision, if any, with regard to grant of same pay scale as payable to other regular Staff Nurses was to be taken by the respondents as per settled law because employer is only competent to grant pay scale after taking consideration the qualifications, nature of duties and functions. True, it is that while taking such decision, there should not be any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 24. After carefully examining the fresh consideration order passed by respondents/proposed contemnors, we are convinced and satisfied that there is proper application of mind by the authority concerned. True, it is that while taking such decision, there should not be any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 24. After carefully examining the fresh consideration order passed by respondents/proposed contemnors, we are convinced and satisfied that there is proper application of mind by the authority concerned. While passing fresh consideration order, as referred above, respondents/proposed contemnors have relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which certainly suggests that matter has been considered on the basis of records as well as law applicable in the case and as such, it cannot be said that there is no consideration in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 25. This Court cannot grant any relief over and above which was prayed in the original writ petition. 26. 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. 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 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. 27. 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. 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. 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].” 28. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law referred hereinabove, this Court is of the view that judgment dated 28.7.2010 passed in CWP-T No. 2709 of 2008 stands duly complied with. Perusal of reply dated 21.7.2016 filed by the respondents/proposed contemnors, wherein consideration order dated 21.7.2016 has been placed on record clearly suggests that there is no willful and intentional disobedience on the part of the respondents/proposed contemnors and as such, this Court sees no reasons to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents/proposed contemnors for noncompliance of the judgment having been passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.