COPC 2 of 2011 20.5.2011 Present: Mr. Avneesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, for the respondent. The grievance made out by the petitioner is that there has been non-compliance of the order passed by this Court on 8th October, 2010. While disposing this petition, a direction had been issued that: “A direction is issued to respondent No. 2 that he shall hear the petitioner with respect to the pay fixation and then arrive at the decision in accordance with law. For this purpose, the petitioner will be at liberty to make such other or further representation/file documents before the respondents in support of his contentions. It will be duly considered by the respondents. The respondent shall also take into consideration the fact as to whether the audit department has infact withdrawn the objection or not as indicated in Annexure PR-12. The decision shall be taken by respondent No. 2 within a period of eight weeks from the date when this order is first presented before him. Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.” Pursuant thereto, Annexure P-4 has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. This, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is not compliance of the directions of this Court. I am unable to accept this submission for the reason that the decision has infact been taken. If that decision is contrary to law, liberty is always reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court to challenge this order or to show/demonstrate that the order passed is not in accordance with law. Contempt contemplates more than a mere wrong decision. It is willful disobedience/defiance of the order of this Court to bring the judicial system into disrepute. Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by instituting appropriate proceedings. May 20, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge