JUDGMENT

S. C. AGRAWAL, J. :—Leave granted

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties

3. This appeal is directed against the order dated September 7, 1993 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No. 2650 of 1990 whereby the appellants have been guilty of Contempt of Court for having failed to comply with the directions contained in the order dated September 20,1989 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in F. M.A.T. No. 1120 of 1988 dismission the said appeal against the judgment and order dated March 10, 1988 passed by a learned single judge in Civil Rule No. 561 (W) of 1984. By the impugned order the learned judges of the High Court, after holding that the appellants are guilty of Contempt of Court, have directed : (

"However before punishing the contemners for wilful violation of the order dated 20-9-1989 we wish to give an opportunity to the respondents to purge themselves of their contumacious conducts and accordingly direct the respondents (i) to fix the basic pay of the petitioner as on 26-7-1980 at Rs. 475/- in keeping with the basic pay accorded to Hrishikesh Roy : (ii) calculate the petitioners pay thereafter in keeping with the pay given to Hrishikesh Roy; (iii) grant the petitioner the benefit of the revised scales of pay under the 1990 ROPA Rules and; (iv) pay to the petitioner the amount of pay on such basis within six weeks from the date of this order."

4. The High Court also directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent to be adjusted against the entitlement of the respondent in accordance with the impugned order.

5. The facts giving rise to the filing of the Contempt Petition by the respondent are briefly as under :

The respondent was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 125.200/- in the Office of the Director, Public Vehicles Directorate on September 1, 1965. On May 27,1969 he joined the Ghosh commission of Enquiry as a Lower Division Assistant in the pay scale Rs. 150-250/-. The said appointment was by way of deputation. On his release from deputation the respondent joined the Home Department as a Lower Division Assistant on June 4, 1971. He was regularised on the post of Lower Division Assistant with effect from June 4, 1976 by order dated March 21, 1977. In the draft gradation list of Lower Division Assistants of the Home Department as on January 1, 1982 his seniority was shown on the basis of his having been appointed as Lower Division Assistant on June 4, 1971. Feeling aggrieved by his placement in the said gradation list the respondent filed a Writ Petition (Civil Rule No. 361 (W) of 1984) which was allowed by learned single Judge of the High Court by judgement dated March 10, 1988. It was held that the seniority of the respondent on the basis of Lower Division Assistant should be computed with effect from May 27, 1969 when he was sent on deputation to the Ghosh Commission of Enquiry as a Lower Division Assistant. The learned single Judge while allowing the said Writ Petition gave the following directions :-

"The draft gradation list is set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to determine the seniority of the petitioner on the basis of continuous length of service from 27th May, 1969 and confer upon the petitioner all consequential benefits."

6. The Letter Patent Appeal (F.A.M.T. 1120 of 1988) filed against the said judgement of the learned single judge was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by judgement dated September 20,1989.

7. During the pendency of the said writ petition of the respondent before the High Court he was appointed as Upper Division Assistant on officiating basis with effect from April 1, 1981. After the decision of he Division Bench of the High Court dated September 20, 1989 order dated January 22,1990 was passed whereby the pay of the respondent as Upper Division Assistant was refixed. On January 30, 1990 was circulated wherein the position of the respondent was fixed as if he had joined as Low