1. - This contempt petition has been filed by Kalyan Sahai Gaur and Kailash Chand Sharma with the prayer that the same may be allowed and cognizance be taken against the respondents/contemnors for committing contempt of order dated 05.01.1999 passed by the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 665/1998. Further it is prayed that respondents be punished adequately for committing contempt of this Court. It is also prayed that compliance of the order dated 05.01.1999 may kindly be ensured.

2. The petitioners have filed this contempt petition in the year 2008 for non-compliance of the order passed on 05.01.1999 and that the contempt proceedings be initiated against the respondents-contemnors for having committed the contempt and they be punished for the same.

3. The petitioners were formerly employees of Central Government, holding the post of NDSI, whose services were absorbed in the State of Rajasthan on the post of PTI Grade-III w.e.f. 1973 after adding Rule 60 by amending Rajasthan Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. One of the condition in the Rules was that the inter se seniority shall remain unchanged.

4. The respondents had granted the benefit of upgradation to two persons junior to the petitioners on the post of PTI Grade-II w.e.f. 22.12.1975, in violation of the aforesaid conditions of the Rules. Therefore, the petitioners filed a writ petition (665/98) claiming upgradation on the post of PTI Grade- II w.e.f. 22.12.1975 as the same had already been granted to the persons junior to them.

5. The said writ petition was allowed by the High Court on 05.01.1999. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:-

"The writ petition accordingly stand allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the petitioners benefit of up gradation with effect from December 22, 1975 or there after with all consequential benefits in second grade in accordance with the order of revision in pay scale from time to time from the date junior persons to them were granted the said benefit. The inter-se seniority list shall remain unchanged as directed in new Rule 6C (vi) inserted in Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 1976 vide notification dated October 14, 1976. The respondents are expected to complete the aforesaid exercise within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Costs easy."

6. Thereafter, on obtaining the certified copy, it was found that the date of judgment was wrongly mentioned as 05.01.1998 instead of 05.01.1999. Therefore, an application for correction was moved and the same was allowed on 10.02.1999.

7. The time provided to the respondents, in the order of the High Court dated 05.01.1999, was a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order to complete the exercise of granting the upgradation to the petitioners w.e.f. 22.12.1975 or thereafter, with all consequential benefits. The time so provided expired but no order with regard to grant of upgradation to them on the post of PTI Grade-II w.e.f. 22.12.1975 and the consequential benefits thereof had been passed. The petitioners had sent a notice to the respondents, through their counsel, on 05.05.2008 to comply with the order dated 05.01.1999 passed by the High Court. When no response was received to the said notice, the present contempt petition came to be filed by the petitioners in the month of June 2008.

8. In this contempt petition, filed on account of disobedience of the judgment passed by the High Court on 05.01.1999, prayer for compliance and for initiation of contempt proceeding for committing the contempt has been made, by filing the same in the month of 2008. Therefore, the first and foremost question which arises for consideration is with regard to limitation prescribed under law in respect of actions for contempt. Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 reads as under:-

No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from th