Facts: The case involves two contempt petitions filed against officials of the Government of Chhattisgarh for non-compliance with the Supreme Court's order dated 20.05.2025. The original order required the creation of supernumerary posts of Godown Keeper within three months, a deadline that expired on 20.08.2025. Instead of complying, the respondents engaged in internal correspondence seeking "guidance" and eventually filed a defective Review Petition in October 2025, long after the deadline. In their reply affidavits, the respondents cited administrative hurdles and logistical issues, while simultaneously stating they would comply only if their Review Petition was dismissed. The Court observed that the respondents attempted to make the implementation of a judicial order conditional upon the outcome of a later-filed, defective review.Procedural Posture: The matter reached the Supreme Court under its extraordinary and inherent contempt jurisdiction following the alleged wilful disobedience of the directions issued in Civil Appeals No. 7023/2025 and 7024/2025. The Court had previously issued notice and directed the personal presence of the alleged contemnors if compliance was not met.Issue: Whether the mere filing of a Review Petition or the existence of administrative hurdles justifies the non-compliance with a clear judicial direction, and whether third parties/non-parties to the original proceedings can be held liable for contempt.Holding: The Court held that a clear-cut case of contempt was made out. It ruled that the filing of a Review Petition does not act as a stay on the operation of an order, and administrative hurdles are not valid defenses if the party failed to approach the Court in time for clarification or extension. Furthermore, any person or authority in the "chain" of implementation is duty-bound to cooperate and cannot escape liability on the ground of not being a party to the original litigation.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that in contempt jurisdiction, the primary concern is whether the final decision has been complied with, not the correctness of that decision. Relying on "Sita Ram v. Balbir", the Court emphasized that third parties who knowingly assist in a breach or thwart the administration of justice are liable for contempt. The Court deprecated the "modus operandi" of filing belated, defective appeals or reviews simply to obtain adjournments in contempt matters. Such conduct interferes with the majesty of the law and borders on criminal contempt. The Court granted a final 15-day "last chance" for compliance before framing formal charges, noting that the "State" must be dealt with firmly to prevent the erosion of public faith in the judiciary.