JUDGMENT : 1. This Contempt Petition has been preferred for alleged breach of an order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4051 of 2013 judgment and order dated 9th February, 2016 whereby, the following directions were given in paragraph no.4: “Since the grievance of the petitioner lies in a very narrow compass, in view of the fact that the relevant document was not traced out by the respondent authorities, it would be apposite to direct respondent nos.2 to 7 to send the relevant pension papers to respondent no.1, who on receipt of the same, shall do the needful for payment of the admissible family pension. The entire exercise be completed within a period of twelve weeks and the respondent no.1 shall do the needful within a period of four weeks thereafter.” 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, it appears that repeatedly the letters have been written by respondent no.2 to this petitioner to clarify certain aspects of the matter like: (a) The name of the petitioner is not tallying with the Aadhaar Card therefore, clarity has to be given by the petitioner so that retirement dues can be made to the petitioner of her deceased husband; (b) In several letters, it has been mentioned by respondent no.2 that the petitioner should give her identity mark which is not supplied yet. (c) It is also mentioned by respondent no.2 in their letters written to the petitioner that why the claim of Coal Mines Provident Fund was raised after approximately 25 years from the date of death of her husband, which has taken place on 12th November, 1991. These clarifications have not been given at all. 3. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the counter affidavits filed by respondent no.2 initially on 8th January, 2018 and later on in supplementary affidavit dated 6th September, 2018, it has been mentioned that on following dates various letters were written: (a) 31st August, 2017; (b) 15th November, 2017; (c) 4th January, 2018; and (d) 4th August, 2018 4. In all these letters repeatedly the aforesaid details were called for by respondent no.2 from this petitioner and it is alleged by the counsel for respondent no.1 that these details have not been supplied. 5. In all these letters repeatedly the aforesaid details were called for by respondent no.2 from this petitioner and it is alleged by the counsel for respondent no.1 that these details have not been supplied. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that all these details have already been supplied much earlier in point of time. 6. Be that as it may, looking to the counter affidavits filed by respondent no.2, there is no wilful disobedience by the respondents of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.4051 of 2013 judgment and order dated 9th February, 2016. 7. Nonetheless, if the details supplied by the petitioner are sufficient, I hereby, direct respondent no.2 to supply those details to respondent no.1 for the claim of Coal Mines Provident Fund by the petitioner and if it is allowed the same will be paid as early as possible and practicable. If the claim of this petitioner is to be rejected it will be also done immediately by reasoned orders so that the petitioner will have liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law before appropriate Forum. 8. With these observations, this contempt petition is hereby, disposed of.