JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have brought to the notice of this Court that the judgment and order dated 19.10.2022, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2352 of 2019, Girish Chandra Pandey vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 3. On 06.06.2023, while hearing these petitions the Court observed as follows: “When the matter was taken up on 18.05.2023, the Court required the State counsel to get instructions as to whether the order dated 19.10.2022 has been complied with or not. Today, learned State counsel gives the statement that the matter is under process. It appears to be prima facie disobedience of the Court’s order. The instructions which have passed in the Court are bald, vague and misleading. Issue notice to respondent to join the proceedings personally or through video conferencing as to why charges be not framed against him for wilfully disobeying the order dated 19.10.2022. List this matter on 03.07.2023.” 4. Today, Smt. Radha Raturi, Principal Secretary (Home), Mr. R.K. Sudhanshu, Principal Secretary (Forest) and Mr. Keshavaraju Murlidhara Rao, Managing Director, Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, Dehradun all the respondents joined the proceedings through video conferencing. The respondent no. 2, Smt. Radha Raturi tells the Court that she has nothing to do with these matters. Now, she is in the Home department of the State Government. 5. The respondent nos. 2, Ms. Radha Raturi need not appear in these cases. Notice given to her is discharged. 6. Mr. R.K. Sudhanshu, Principal Secretary (Forest) gives a statement that pursuant to the judgment and order dated 19.10.2022, the retiral dues have already been given to all the petitioners. The respondent no. 3 also gives the statement that all the retiral dues as per judgment dated 19.10.2022 have been provided. 7. In fact, on behalf of the respondent no. 3, a response affidavit has been tendered at the time of hearing. It is taken on record. According to it, on 01.07.2023, a communication was made by Regional Manager, Mahesh Singh Arya that retiral dues have been paid. Mr. Mahesh Singh Arya is also present before the Court, as identified by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Mahesh Singh Arya, on being asked, would tell the Court that entire retiral dues of the petitioners have been paid. Mr. Mahesh Singh Arya is also present before the Court, as identified by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Mahesh Singh Arya, on being asked, would tell the Court that entire retiral dues of the petitioners have been paid. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were ought to have been paid little more amount as retiral dues, which is not done. 9. This is disputing the retiral dues. The Court in its order dated 19.10.2022 did not specify as to what is 9 the amount that is payable to the petitioners. Court simply directed the respondents to make payments of the retiral dues. A statement is given that entire payment have been made to the petitioners and, in fact, as stated, the Regional Manager on 01.07.2023 made a communication which is part of the response affidavit as Annexure No. 1 that payment has been made. If there is any dispute with regard to the amount that is payable to the petitioners that may be separately agitated, but in these contempt petitions those factual aspects may not be examined. 10. Since the order is reported to have been complied with, this Court does not see that these are the cases of wilful disobedience. Accordingly, nothing survives in these petitions. All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly.