ORDER : Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. The present Contempt Case is filed to punish the respondent authorities for willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.25032 of 2020 dated 14.09.2022, under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioners herein presented Writ Petition before this Court for Writ of Mandamous to direct the respondents to consider their case for regularization of service forthwith in the category of working Inspector, Attender and Attender respectively. 2. As seen from the averments in the Writ Petition, the present Writ Petition is filed for regularization of service basing upon the orders of this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions. This Court has allowed the Writ Petitions basing upon the admission made in the Counter Affidavit filed in W.P. No.25032 of 2020, where the respondent authorities asserted in the following manner “It is to be stated that the circumstances the case filed in the relevant writ petitions viz W.P. No.27217 of 2017, 1425 of 2019 and 19361 of 2018 upon which the Court passed Orders dated 19.09.2017, 15.10.2019 and 25.09.2019 respectively are not known to these respondents as all the applicants in these Writ Petitions are not pertaining to this division [Water Resources Department]. However, in case the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the present Writ Petition passes such orders, the respondents have no objection to approach the Government and obtain necessary orders for conversion of the applicants from NMR services to W.C. Service duly regularizing their services without following the cutoff date i.e. 25.11.1993 as fixed by the Government through Act No.2 of 1994, and to extend consequential benefits”. 3. Basing on the admission made by the respondents in the Counter in W.P. No.25302 of 2020, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of the services fixing a time of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order in W.P. No.2530 of 2020. 4. For not complying the directions of this Court, the petitioners herein filed the present Contempt Case to punish the respondents for not regularizing the services of the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in the order in W.P. No.25302 a positive direction was given to the respondents. Not implementing the order amounts to willful disobedience of the order. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in the order in W.P. No.25302 a positive direction was given to the respondents. Not implementing the order amounts to willful disobedience of the order. Therefore, the petitioners would contend that the respondents are liable to be punished for the willful disobedience of the order of this Court under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 6. Demurer, counsel appearing for the respondents by name Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy filed reply/counter affidavit and agitated that the petitioners herein filed O.A. No.11573 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, with a prayer to regularize their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 (Finance and Planning) Department dated 22.04.1994 from the date of completion of 5 years of service. And the said O.A. was dismissed by the Administrative Tribunal with a finding that the applicants/petitioners herein have not completed 5 years of service as on the cut of date i.e. 27.09.1993 and unless they complete 5 years of service as on the cutoff date they are not entitled for regularization of service and also further contended that the orders in W.P. No.77217 of 2017 dated 19.09.2017 W.P. No.1425 of 2019 dated 15.10.2019 and WP 19361 of 2018 dated 29.08.2019 are disposed of directed to consider for regularization against existing vacancies subject to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary v. State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 And also relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others, 2023 LiveLaw(SC) 91 for the proposition that two conditions for regularizations of daily wage employees shall be fulfilled, firstly, initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and secondly, there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working. No claim for regularization if these conditions are not met. And also relied on the order of this Court in W.P. No.8894 of 2012, wherein the Division Bench in order dated 14.02.2024 for the very same proposition which was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court referred supra. As per the two judgments any employee can be regularized only on fulfillment of two conditions that there must be appointed by the competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post. As per the two judgments any employee can be regularized only on fulfillment of two conditions that there must be appointed by the competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post. And it is contended that the petitioners have not been appointed in any sanctioned post. Therefore, the services of the petitioners cannot be regularized. 7. And the present petitioners in the contempt case were initially appointed as NMR (Work Inspector)/ NMR (Man Mazdoor) / NMR (Man Mazdoor) purely on temporary basis and on daily wages and their appointments were not made against sanctioned vacant posts and also not as per the standard recruitment procedure. And they are not having 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 in duly sanctioned vacant posts with requisite qualifications. As they are not appointed against duly sanctioned vacant posts, which is one of the requisite condition for regularization as laid down in para 53 of the Umadevi case referred supra, is not in accordance with the law. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be regularized and are not entitled to get any consequential benefits. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the respondents pleaded to dismiss the contempt case. 8. Heard Sri M. Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy for the respondents. 9. As per the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, undoubtedly the petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their services as they have not worked for 5/10 years as contemplated under the Act No.2 of 1994 and subsequent G.O.s which are promulgated by the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, the respondents have admitted in the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition No.25032 of 2020. Relying on the admission i.e. which speaks that the respondent authorities are inclined to oblige any orders passed by this Court. Therefore, basing upon the said admission made by the respondents, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization. The respondents ought not to have been admitted in the counter affidavit that respondent is ready to oblige any orders passed by the Court while doing so one should necessarily have to oblige any order passed by this Court. The respondents ought not to have been admitted in the counter affidavit that respondent is ready to oblige any orders passed by the Court while doing so one should necessarily have to oblige any order passed by this Court. The thread decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (1) Madan Mohan Pathak and another v. Union of India, 1978 (2) SCC 50 , (2) A.V. Nachane and another v. Union of India and another, 1984 (4) SCC 545 , (3) P.S. Mahal and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1984 SC 1291 and in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in LIC v. D.J. Bahadur, (1981) 1 SCC 315 held that even the decision rendered by the Court amounts to erroneous, the remedy by way of appeal or review, but so long as the judgment stands, it cannot be disregarded or ignored and it must be obeyed by the respondents. And the same principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and others, (2004) 7 SCC 261 wherein it was held that while dealing with the contempt, the Court is really concerned with the compliance of the order passed by it or not. It would not be permissible for a court to re-examining the correctness of the earlier decision, which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier order. In such an event, the aggrieved party can always approach the Court for implementation of the earlier orders by approaching the Court which passed the order for invoking the appellate jurisdiction. 10. When, once an order is passed, it is the duty of the authorities to implement the same without giving any interpretation and if the order is contrary to law, they are at liberty to file appropriate appeal before the appellate authority or application before the Single Judge to review the order. But, without preferring an appeal, the respondent/contemnor cannot interpret the order and give different meaning to the order passed by the Court, which is sought to be implemented, as directed by the Court and such act of the respondent/contemnor is illegal in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C Muddaiah, 2007 (7) SCC 689 . 11. 11. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practical nor feasible can always either approach to the Court that passed the order for review or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in the contempt proceedings. The respondents ought to have been took an advice to mean that they are not required to follow a single judge decision on the basis of legal advice or court’s decision is effected by jurisdictional error and the order do not have legal effect. As a matter of fact, the decision is incorrect at least the circumstances prompt action is taken to clarify the position (presumably by way of appeal or review of the single judge decision). And the order of the Writ Courts cannot be nullify by interpreting the order sitting as an appellate authority over the decision of the High Court delivered under Articles 226 / 227 of Constitution of India. 12. The admission made by the respondents made this Court to pass the order in W.P No.25032 of 2020. Accordingly arguments beyond the admission in the counter are not permissible and are rejected accordingly. 13. Therefore, this Court founds that the 1st respondent has violated the orders of this Court in W.P. No.25032 of 2020 dated 14.09.2022 and this Court found guilty of the 1st respondent. In the result the contempt case is allowed sentencing the respondent No.1 to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six weeks and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only). In the event of failure to pay the fine of Rs.2,000/-, the 1st respondent shall further undergo 2 weeks of imprisonment that won’t run concurrently. The 1st respondent is hereby directed to surrender before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on or before 05.07.2024, on such surrender, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send the 1st respondent/contemnor to civil prison in accordance with the order. The contempt case is closed against the respondents No.2 to 5. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this contempt case shall stand closed.