JUDGMENT : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. The allegation in this proceeding is willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 21st April, 2016 in L.P.A. No. 100 of 2008. The operative part of the order reads :- “12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is apparent that the impugned order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the learned Writ Court suffers from serious infirmity in law. We hereby set-aside the impugned order dated 18.02.2008. Considering the fact that order dated 12.04.2007 has been passed misconstruing the facts of the case, order dated 12.04.2007 is also quashed. The respondent no.3 is directed to place the case of the petitioners for grant of pensionary benefits before the competent authority and the competent authority shall take a conscious decision in the light of the facts noticed hereinabove without any delay. 13. The Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.” 2. This Court came to the aforesaid finding on the basis of the reasoning as reflected in paragraph 8 of the judgment, which reads :- “8. May be, the Tribunal was constituted as a Part-time Tribunal and till date it has remained a Part-Time Tribunal however, insofar as, employment of the petitioners in the Tribunal is concerned, the same must be held to have acquired permanency. Except, regularising their service, they have been granted most of the benefits at par with other regular employees. Moreover, in view of fact that the petitioner no.1 has since been superannuated from service while working in the Part-Time Tribunal on the full-time post of Upper Division Clerk and the petitioner no.2 is still working there, their claim for regularization should have been considered at-least for the purpose of granting retiral benefits to them. The petitioner no.1 who worked in the Part-Time Tribunal for over 30 years and the petitioner no.2 who is also working there for about 30 years cannot be deprived of their legitimate right to receive retiral benefits which all employees under the Government at the sunset of their service expect from their employer. Long back, it has been held that pension and gratuity are no longer charity. True, as yet the petitioners are not the permanent employee of the Part-Time Tribunal, yet depriving them of the equal benefits as admissible to the full-time regular employees is definitely unfair and the same is arbitrary. Long back, it has been held that pension and gratuity are no longer charity. True, as yet the petitioners are not the permanent employee of the Part-Time Tribunal, yet depriving them of the equal benefits as admissible to the full-time regular employees is definitely unfair and the same is arbitrary. Also, when it is considered in the light of the fact that the petitioners had been representing for regularization of their services since long, the action of the respondents definitely seems to be unfair and unreasonable.” 3. The alleged contemnors have denied any violation of the order referred to above and their stand is reflected in a letter issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Coal dated 6/12th July, 2017. This letter reads : “I am directed to refer to your letter dated 16.6.2016 and 15.5.2017 on the above mentioned subject and to say that request of Shri Kunj Bihari Sharma (UDC) and Bikrama Singh (Peon-cum-Process server) may not be considered for regularization of their services for pensionary benefits as their appointment was made purely on temporary basis. As per Rule 14(1) of Central Civil Service Rule, “the service of a Government servant shall not qualify unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government or under conditions determined by the Government”. For the purpose of sub rule (1), the expression ‘service’ means service under the Government and paid by the Government from Consolidated Fund of India (CFI) or a Local Fund administered by that Government but does not include service in a non-pensionary establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by the Government. 2. PTT, Ranchi is a non-pensionary establishment. The pay of staff, including full time staff, is paid by CCL out of CIL’s funds routed through budget of Ministry of Coal. The pay is not made out of Consolidated Fund of India. Therefore, the staff is not entitled for pension as per rule.” 4. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Senior Counsel has taken us through the judgment the violation of which is complained against and his submission is for all practical purposes, there was finding to the effect that the petitioner ought to be entitled to pensionary benefits. But at that point of time whether the establishment was a pensionary or non-pensionary one was not the subject of dispute. But at that point of time whether the establishment was a pensionary or non-pensionary one was not the subject of dispute. This has surfaced after the order was passed in pursuance of the judgment from which the contempt action originates. 5. In such circumstances, having considered the fact that a contempt action is a quasi-criminal proceeding, we cannot hold that there is willful disobedience of the order of this Court which prompted filing of the contempt action. 6. The present contempt petition shall stand disposed of. 7. The petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the legality of the letter dated 6/12th July, 2017 before appropriate forum.