V.V.S. Rao, J.

The petitioner served in the Army Medical Corp from 1969 to 1993. While he was the Lieutenant Colonel, he was court marshalled for four charges. He was exonerated on first charge. He was however, found guilty of three charges, which included misappropriation and absence without leave. The General Court Martial awarded the punishment to be cashiered and to forfeit four years of his past service for the purpose of loss of pension. The confirming authority remitted the matter for re-consideration of first charge. In obedience thereto, the General Court Martial re-assembled and confirmed their earlier finding on the first charge but, in their proceedings dated 07.05.1994, imposed the punishment of forfeiture of arrears of pay and allowances and other public money due to him at the time of cashiering. The petitioner’s appeal under Section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950 failed. He assailed the same in W.P.No.27714 of 1996. The same was allowed setting aside the order of the General Court Martial.

During its pendency, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice as to why his pensionary benefits should not be withheld. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.09.1995. The Government of India passed orders on 24.12.1996 forfeiting all pensionary benefits. The petitioner then filed W.P.No.3923 of 1998 challenging the order dated 24.12.1996 of the Government of India. By order, dated 18.08.2009, a learned single Judge of this Court set aside the said order and directed the Government of India to re-consider the issue afresh under Regulation 16(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (the Regulations, for brevity) in the light of the observations made in the Order of the learned Single Judge as well as the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Brig.A.K.Malhotra (Retd) v Union of India 1997 (2) Labour & Industrial Cases 2005 . The writ appeal, being W.A.No.1966 of 1999, was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court comprising one of us (Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) on 30.06.2008. The Government of India and three others filed Review W.A.M.P.No.2655 of 2008. The same was also disposed of by this Court on 27.02.2009 directing the Government to consider the matter under Regulation 16(a) of the Regulations. This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in the said review petition.

The order of the learned single Judge, dated 18.08.1999 in W.P.No.3923 of 1998, merged in the order of the Division Bench dated 30.06.2008 in W.A.No.1966 of 1999. It is not clear whether the said order was stayed by this Court, when the Government filed review application. Be that as it is, the review application was disposed of on 27.02.2009. This contempt case was presented in the Registry on 28.06.2010. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Contempt Act, for brevity) bars a Court from “initiating any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed”. This Court, while disposing of the review application, directed the Government of India to consider the matter under Regulation 16(a) of the Regulations without reference to the observations made in the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Brig. A.K.Malhotra. This Court did not fix any time for complying with the order, but as per Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, “unless the Court otherwise directs, the direction or order made or the Rule absolute issued by the High Court shall be implemented within two months of the receipt of the order”. In strict sense, the Government of India was required to consider the case of the petitioner and pass an order under Regulation 16(a) on or before 26th April, 2009. In other words, the petitioner ought to have filed the contempt case under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt Act befor