RP No.464 of 2011. 21.9.2011. Petitioner present in person. This review petition is directed against an order dt.12.8.2011 passed in Contempt Case No.1200/2011 by which the contempt petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by an order which reads thus : “12.8.2011. Petitioner present in person. We have heard the petitioner. By order dt.8.12.2010 in Review Petition No.740/2010 a Division Bench of this Court directed thus : “In view of the aforesaid submission the review petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2, Director, to consider the claim of the petitioner for salary for the period during which the petitioner claims to be on medical leave and to pass a suitable order in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.” Respondent No.2, the Director, considered the case of the petitioner and found that the petitioner was not entitled for medical leave for the period between 27.7.95 and 15.9.95 and rejected the claim of the petitioner. However, the aforesaid period was treated to be dies non. Petitioner submitted that the aforesaid representation has been wrongly decided while the Division Bench directed that the case of the petitioner be decided in accordance with law and the order is not in accordance with law. We find that the question whether the petitioner's representation was decided in accordance with law or not cannot be examined in contempt jurisdiction. We have to see whether the representation of the petitioner was decided by the respondent No.2 in compliance of the aforesaid order or not. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the aforesaid decision petitioner is always free to assail the aforesaid by filing a fresh petition, but, in the contempt jurisdiction we cannot examine the correctness of the decision which is not permissible under the law. In view of the aforesaid, this contempt petition is dismissed. However, petitioner shall RP No.464 of 2011. be at liberty to challenge the decision Annexure- P/3 by filing a fresh petition, if advised so.” It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner's claim was not considered properly. On the contrary the period of 51 days was treated as dies non which is not permissible under the rules. The merits of the decision cannot be examined in the contempt jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is limited. Petitioner if so aggrieved by the aforesaid decision could have filed a fresh petition for redressal of the grievance. But, neither in the contempt petition nor in the review jurisdiction, we can examine the decision of the Director deciding the claim of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, no merit is found in this review petition. This review petition is dismissed at the admission stage with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimala Jain) Judge Judge Khan*