Order 1. Leave granted. The challenge in this appeal is against the order of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated 2nd July, 2015 whereby while hearing a contempt petition the High Court had directed that the benefit of retrospective appointment with effect from 1997 be given to the petitioners in the contempt petition (respondents herein). 2. The brief facts that will be required to be noticed are as follows in the year 1997 a recruitment process for filling up vacancies of Physical Education Instructors was initiated. The respondent-contempt petitioners were not selected. They moved the High Court by way of a writ petition. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 23rd April 2001 while finding fault with the selection thought it proper not to interfere with the selection and appointments made but in view of the fact that there were 15 vacant posts still available directed due consideration of the cases of the respondent-contempt petitioners. The said order was carried in appeal by the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on 17th May 2012. Thereafter, it appears that pursuant to the aforesaid orders of the High Court, the respondent-contempt petitioners were appointed. Alleging that their appointment should have been made retrospectively from 1997 when the others were appointed, the contempt petition in question was filed by the respondents herein wherein the impugned directions were issued. Aggrieved, the appellants are in appeal before us. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Reading the orders of the High Court dated 23rd April 2001 and 17th May 2012, we do not find any specific direction issued by the High Court for appointment of the respondent-contempt petitioners with retrospective effect from the year 1997. The directions issued were for due consideration of the cases of the respondent-contempt petitioners against the available vacancies. After the order of the Division Bench was passed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge the cases of the respondent-contempt petitioners were duly considered and they were appointed in the year 2015. In the absence of any specific direction for giving retrospective effect to the said appointments, we do not see how the respondent-contempt petitioners can lay a claim for being appointed with retrospective effect. In the absence of any specific direction for giving retrospective effect to the said appointments, we do not see how the respondent-contempt petitioners can lay a claim for being appointed with retrospective effect. That apart, we also fail to see how in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction the High Court could have granted a relief which was beyond the relief’s granted in the writ proceedings. We, therefore, cannot uphold the view taken by the High Court in the impugned order. 5. A submission has been made on behalf of the respondent-contempt petitioners that if their appointments are to be construed with effect from 2015 many of them would not be eligible for pensionary benefits. Though specific details in this regard are not forthcoming, we would like to observe that there are adequate provisions in the relevant pension rules which permit the competent authority in the State to relax the rigour of qualifying service in an appropriate case. The respondent-contempt petitioners, if they are affected and the retirement benefits are not forthcoming in the future, may avail of the provisions of the aforesaid pensionary rules, if they are so entitled and so advised. 6. Consequently and in the light of the above, we allow this appeal; set aside the order of the High Court with the observations as above. The appeal shall stand disposed of in the above terms.