JUDGMENT : Rai Chattopadhyay, J. 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the records. 2. This is a contempt application by the petitioner, alleging willful and deliberate violation of this Court’s order dated September 20, 2024, passed in writ petition no. WPA 23788 of 2017. 3. Mr. Biswas appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the order of the Court as above, has not been complied with by the alleged contemnor in its true letters and spirit. Instead, after filing of this contempt and in an endevour to safeguard himself from the obvious fall out of his wilful disobedience of the Court’s order, an order has been passed by the said alleged contemnor, that is, dated November 27, 2024, which is nothing but an eye wash only. 4. Mr. Biswas has stated that the so-called compliance by the alleged contemnor vide his order dated November 27, 2024 is nothing but sham and may not be acceptable by this Court as a due compliance of its order, as mentioned above. 5. By referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C. Elumalai and Others Vs. A.G.L. Irudayaraj and Another reported in 2009 4 SCC 213 , he has stated that in case a clear and unambiguous order of the Court which may not be capable of more than one interpretation, is to be complied with by the alleged contemnor in its true letters and spirit and disobedience or breach thereof, would amount to contempt of Court. By relying on the said judgment, he has stated that misunderstanding or own-understanding of the Court’s order would not be a permissible defence for the alleged contemnor, in that case. 6. As regards the subject matter, as involved in the present contempt application, a clarificatory order of this Court, as regards the judgment of the Hon’ble Larger Bench in the case of Utpal Kanti Karan-vs-State of West Bengal reported in 2024 SCC Online Cal 1274 , is also referred to, that is, an order dated December 23, 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in FMA No. 538 of 2020 (State of West Bengal and Another Vs. Bakul Kumar Sing and Others). 7. By referring to the two other decisions as follows, passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in contempt jurisdiction, Mr. Bakul Kumar Sing and Others). 7. By referring to the two other decisions as follows, passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in contempt jurisdiction, Mr. Biswas has submitted that, even in contempt jurisdiction and upon finding non-satisfactory compliance by the alleged contemnor of the directions of the Court, the Court may issue further orders for fresh compliance as well as even granting the benefits to the writ petitioner as prayed for. The orders are as follows:- C PAN/622/2023 (Sanjay Kundu and Ors. Vs. Partha Pratim Roy, Chairman, North Bengal State Transport Corporation and Ors.) dated 19.1.2024 and 13.02.2025. 8. Thus, Mr. Biswas has insisted that a rule may be issued in the present contempt application. 9. Serious objections have been raised on behalf of the alleged contemnor, which is represented by Mr. Basu Mallick. Affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed by the said alleged contemnor. 10. Mr. Basu Mallick has submitted firmly and with conviction that issuance of the order dated November 27, 2024 by the alleged contemnor, amounts to due compliance with the Court’s order. In this regard Mr. Basu Mallick has taken the Court to the concerned order, to submit that after setting aside the impugned order dated February 12, 2009 in the said writ petition, the petitioner’s prayer has been relegated by the Court to the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal for assessing the petitioner’s prayer afresh and to pass a reasoned order thereupon. According to the alleged contemnor, the relevant order of him dated November 27, 2024 is exactly the same. Hence, even after complying with the Court’s order, it is stated, that the alleged contemnor cannot be held liable for contempt of Court by demeaning the Court’s honour in any manner whatsoever. So far as this contempt application is concerned according to the alleged contemnor, there is not cogent ground for the petitioner to sustain it successfully. 11. The subject matter of the writ petition as above, was related to refusal of grant of higher pay scale to the petitioner who is a Physical Education teacher with Master’s degree qualification. In the order of this Court dated September 20, 2024, the Court has discussed in accordance with the submissions made before it and also by relying on the judicial pronouncements, which has shaped the law to govern the field. In paragraph 11, the Court has held categorically as follows:- “ 11. In the order of this Court dated September 20, 2024, the Court has discussed in accordance with the submissions made before it and also by relying on the judicial pronouncements, which has shaped the law to govern the field. In paragraph 11, the Court has held categorically as follows:- “ 11. On the basis of the judgments as mentioned above the law is now very well settled that the a post graduate teacher of physical education having obtained higher qualification in his subject, would be eligible for grant of higher pay scale, irrespective of whatever category of teacher, he has been appointed for. 12. In the light of the discussion of the Court as made in the said judgment, the alleged contemnor had to deal with the matter and pass its order. As a matter of fact, it can be noted that the alleged contemnor did not care about complying with the Court’s order before filing of the contempt application, not to speak of compliance with the direction that he should pass a reasoned order within a stipulated period of time. 13. Therefore, firstly, as regards the date of passing the order by the alleged contemnor, said to have been in compliance with the Court’s order dated September 20, 2024, there has been a gross violation of this Court’s order. That being not supported by any reason, far less any cogent reason regarding the cause of delay, the Court has no hesitation to hold such delay to be wilful and deliberate on the part of the alleged contemnor. 14. The court has meticulously gone through the detailed order of the alleged contemnor that is, dated November 27, 2024. Several reasons have been cited therein, which are beyond scope of the Court’s order dated September 20, 2024. By doing so, the alleged contemnor has travelled beyond the scope of the Court’s order supplementing its own reason by possibly mis- understanding that travelling beyond the scope of the Court’s order, is not warranted. In such circumstances, the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Elumalai (Supra) is squarely applicable here. The relevant portion thereof may be quoted as hereinbelow:- “ 11. In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. In such circumstances, the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Elumalai (Supra) is squarely applicable here. The relevant portion thereof may be quoted as hereinbelow:- “ 11. In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors.6 ( 2002 (4) SCC 21 ) , this Court held that the Contempt of Courts Act has been introduced in the statute-book for securing confidence of people in the administration of justice. If and order passed by a competent Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of more than one interpretation, disobedience or breach of such order would amount to contempt of Court. There can be no laxity in such a situation because otherwise the Court orders would become the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding or own understanding of the Court’s order would not be a permissible defence. It was observed that power to punish a person for contempt is undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of Judiciary beyond doubt that the person for contempt is undoubtedly and intentionally violated the order of the Court. The power under the Act must be exercised with utmost care and caution and sparingly in the larger interest of the society and for proper administration of justice delivery system. Mere disobedience of an order is not enough to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. 15. The alleged contemnor has spent several words in explaining the law settled by dint of various judgments of this Court. Unfortunately, the Court finds that there is no scope for the alleged contemnor to interpret the Court’s order, but the follow the same. A belated drive of the alleged contemnor by delivering his order dated November 27, 2024 is, therefore, found to be a desperate attempt by him to show as if the order of the Court is complied with by it, whereas on dissection of the order itself and the time at which the alleged contemnor has felt it proper to pass such an order, clearly suggest that there has been willful and deliberate violation of this Court’s order dated September 20, 2024 by the alleged contemnor in compliance thereof, in its true letters and spirit. 16. 16. Therefore, the Court is unable to accept the order of the alleged contemnor dated November 27, 2024 as the due and sufficient compliance of its order dated September 20, 2024 and finds that the alleged contemnor has deliberately and willfully, violated to comply the Court’s order dated September 20, 2024. Hence, rule is issued directing the alleged contemnor to be present personally on the next date fixed and explain as to why necessary proceedings shall not be drawn against him for willful and deliberate violation of this Court’s order dated September 20, 2024. 17. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.