The petitioner/appellant- Zahid Hussain had filed a writ application bearing W.P.(S) No.4101 of 2010 for a direction to the respondents to make payment of his retiral dues together with arrears of salary and other monetary benefits payable pursuant to the 6th Pay Revision.

2. That writ application was disposed of vide order dated 14.09.2010, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the concerned authorities of the respondents, stating his claim in detail together with supporting grounds and all requisite informations and within two months from the date of receipt of such representation so that the concerned authorities shall consider the claim of the petitioner and take an appropriate decision on the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order and shall effectively communicate such decision to the petitioner. Further it was observed that the respondents shall ensure that whatever payments by way of retiral dues to which the petitioner is found eligible, shall be paid to him together with interest at appropriate rate, within a period of two months of the date of final decision taken on the petitioner's representation.

3. When that order, according to the petitioner, was not complied with, a Contempt Petition bearing Cont. Case (Civil) No.358 of 2011 was filed. On the day when that case was taken up, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, counsel for the University submitted before the court that whatever dues were payable, the same have already been paid. In this regard, it was placed before the court that the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs.12,56,557/-. That apart, amount accruing as interest @ 5% per annum has also been paid.

4. Taking into account the said submission, the Court did find that the order passed by this court has been complied with and thereby, the aforesaid Contempt Petition was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved with that order, this Contempt Appeal has been preferred, taking a plea that it was wrongly submitted on behalf of the University that the entire dues worth Rs.12,56,557/- has been paid, rather that amount was towards arrears of salary and not the retiral dues.

6. At the threshold, question of maintainability over the Contempt Appeal has been raised.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, by referring to Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, submits that the appeal is very much maintainable as the Contempt Appeal does not only against the decision of the court inflicting punishment for contempt but also against any order passed by the court in contempt petition and thereby this appeal is maintainable as the appeal is directed against the order by which contempt petition has been dismissed.

8. This was objected to by Mr. R.R. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State and also by Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Ranchi University, by submitting that the order by which Contempt Petition had been dismissed, never relates to the punishment for Contempt and, thereby, the Contempt Appeal cannot be maintained.

9. Mr. R.R. Mishra, by elaborating his submission, did point it out that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has been enacted to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of courts and to regulate their procedure thereto and under the procedure laid down, the aggrieved person is only obliged to bring to the knowledge to the Court that the certain order passed by this Court has not been complied with and thereafter, the issue remains in between the contemnor and the Court and, therefore, in this event, only when an order of punishment is passed in Contempt Petition, the appeal can be filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

10. Further, by referring to Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Mr. Mishra, submits that the appeal would be maintainable against any order or decision by which punishment is inflicted upon the contemnor and, thereby since the order, under