JUDGMENT : Aniruddha Bose, J. The applicant in this contempt action stands appointed as peons of Road Construction Department. This appointment has been done by an order dated 19.01.2019. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition for regularisation and that writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 24.07.2015. The operative part of the order in that judgment was: “16. Accordingly, as cumulative effects of facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order at Annexure-12 & 12/1 is not legally sustainable and are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner, for regularization in view of the facts that the junior to the petitioners have been regularized vide Annexure-17 to the rejoinder affidavit within a period of two months.” 2. Subsequently, an appeal was preferred but on 20.05.2016 when the matter appeared before this Court the learned Advocate-General had assured the Court that the order of 24.07.2015 would be implemented within eight weeks and the appeal of the State was withdrawn. As even after lapse of the aforesaid timeframe there was no compliance of the order of the learned Division Bench, the present contempt action has been instituted. 3. Now the aforesaid order has been passed by the Road Construction Department on 19.01.2019 in which appointment has been given to the writ petitioner, who is the applicant in the contempt petition. His grievance now is that he ought to have been regularised from the earlier date and what has been done in this case was a fresh appointment. The judgment of which implementation has been effected by the aforesaid order, there is no specific mandate for regularisation. The direction was for consideration of the petitioner's case for regularisation. In the event the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed, it shall be open to him to independently challenge the said order. But we do not find any willful disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 20.05.2016. That order has been substantially complied with. 4. The contempt petition is accordingly, disposed of. 5. Since, we have disposed of the main contempt petition, the connected Interlocutory application being I.A. No.10325 of 2018 filed for exemption from appearance of O.P.No.2, is disposed of.