IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2263 of 2007 DR.PREM CHANDRA GUPTA, son of Sri Ram Chandra Gupta Lecturer in Chemistry, Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur-3, residing in Quarters No.11 M.I.T. Campus, P.O.-M.I.T., Muzaffrpur-3 P.S. Brahmpura, Dist. Muzaffarpur----------petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Deptt. Of Science & technology, Government of Bihar 2.The Joint Secretary Shri Krishna Tripathi, Science & technology, Govt. of Bihar 3.The Director, Dr.Dhruva Prasad, Science & technology Govt. of Bihar All the above addressed at Technology Bhavan, Bailey Road, Patna 4.The Secretary A.S.Mathur the deptt of Finance, Main Secretariat, Patna 5.Mr.G.N.Akhawri, Secretary, B.P.S.C.,Bailey Road Patna----------------------------------opp.parties ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.S.N.Sinha For the State :Mr.P.K.Verma, A.C. to S.C.10 For the BPSC :Mr.Sanjay Pandey. ------ 8. 13.1.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, B.P.S.C. and for the State. By order dated 10.10.2006 this Court had directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for upgradation of scale in terms of the Career Advancement Scheme and conclude the same by issuing necessary orders as also to pay the consequential financial benefits of such upgradation. In the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite parties, the State and the B.P.S.C. the stand taken is that the order under contempt has been complied with and on the basis of the 2 recommendation of the B.P.S.C. the petitioner has been given promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the Science & Technology Department had recommended to the B.P.S.C. for grant of promotion w.e.f. 7.12.1998 the B.P.S.C. has extended the same to 1.7.2000. In the show cause filed on behalf of the Secretary, B.P.S.C. it is stated that the same has been done in terms of the Circulars and directions of the AICTE with respect to grant of Career Advancement Scheme. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order under contempt stands complied with. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner if aggrieved by the actions of the authorities in fixing his date of promotion as 1.7.2000 instead of 7.12.1998 may challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/