As per case facts, the petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a previous court order that directed his promotion with "all consequential benefits." While the respondent granted ... notional promotion, they denied back wages, arguing that the petitioner did not work in the promotional post during the retrospective period, adhering to the "no work no pay" principle. The question arose whether an employee granted retrospective promotion with "all consequential benefits" is automatically entitled to back wages, especially when the original court order did not specifically direct such payment, and if this issue can be adjudicated within contempt jurisdiction. Finally, the court, relying on a consistent line of Supreme Court judgments, held that the phrase "all consequential benefits" does not inherently include back wages. It reiterated that back wages require independent consideration and specific judicial direction, particularly where the employee did not perform the duties of the higher post. The court concluded that denying back wages under these circumstances did not constitute willful disobedience of its order and that contempt jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum to decide claims for back wages when not explicitly directed. The petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue a fresh writ petition for his grievance regarding back wages.