JUDGMENT Subba Reddy Satti, J. - The above contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to summon and punish the respondents for commission of criminal contempt of court by issuing the so called speaking order, dated 05.11.2020 thereby lowering the authority of this Court and for obstructing administration of justice by not implementing the order, dated 29.08.2020 in W.P.No.19523 of 2018. 2. W.P.No.19523 of 2018 was filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the service of petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, besides violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioners' services, counting their entire service for the purpose of retirement benefits and to direct the respondents to pay arrears of salary together with interest at 12% per annum etc. 3. The said writ petition along with other writ petitions was disposed of by a common order. The operative portion of order reads as follows. 'Hence, in view of the above judgment, there shall be a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners forthwith subject to the petitioners possessing other requisite qualifications.' 4. Present contempt case is filed alleging that by passing speaking order, the order of learned Single Judge is being openly defied. 5. Counter affidavit was filed by 4th respondent. It was contended inter alia that the University examined eligibility of each of the petitioners in compliance of the orders of this Court and found that none of the petitioners have fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per para 53 of Umadevi's case (referred to supra) and passed speaking order, dated 18.09.2020 rejecting request of the petitioners to regularize service. Copy of proceedings, dated 18.09.2020 was communicated to the petitioners. 4th respondent also tendered unconditional apology for the delay in implementing the order. 6. In view of the contentions extracted supra, the point to be considered is whether the respondents violated or failed to implement the order dated 29.08.2019 passed in W.P.No.19523 of 2018? 7. Heard learned counsel on either side. 8. As can be seen from the speaking order dated 18.09.2020, it was pointed out that neither the petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned posts nor rule of reservation was followed. Petitioners were appointed as daily wage/NMR employees. 7. Heard learned counsel on either side. 8. As can be seen from the speaking order dated 18.09.2020, it was pointed out that neither the petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned posts nor rule of reservation was followed. Petitioners were appointed as daily wage/NMR employees. Other reasons were also assigned in the order dated 18.09.2020. 9. In J.S.Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and Others (1996) 6 SCC 291 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows. '.... Once there is an order passed by the Government on the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act.....' 10. In the case on hand, pursuant to the order, dated 29.08.2019 in W.P.No.19523 of 2018, respondents, in fact, considered the case of the petitioners and passed speaking orders. 11. Along with W.P.No.19523 of 2018, W.P.No.19419 of 2018 was also disposed of. Complaining violation of the order in W.P.No.19419 of 2018, C.C.No.779 of 2021 was filed. Learned Single Judge of this Court closed C.C.No.789 of 2021 on the ground that there is no willful violation of the orders passed by this Court. Against said closure, the petitioners therein filed LPA No.4 of 2021. The said LPA was dismissed as not maintainable. 12. In view of the above, since the petitioners' case was considered pursuant to the order, dated 28.09.2019 and speaking orders were passed, which were communicated to each of the petitioners vide Lr. C3/Estt./JNTUA/Time Scale/2020, dated 18.09.2020, it doesn't amount to defying the order of this Court dated 29.08.2019 in W.P.No, 19523 of 2018. 13. In view of the above discussion, this contempt case is closed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.