IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.634 of 2006 RAM LOCHAN SHARMA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, Adv. For the State of Jharkhand: Sri Dhruba Mukherjee Sr. standing counsel to State of Jharkhand. For the State of Bihar : Lala S. N. Rais J.C. to G.A.-IX. -------------- 5. 14.07.2008 In this contempt application, the grievance of the petitioner is that this court’s order dated 12.11.2003 as passed in CWJC NO. 9549 of 1998 has not been complied in connection with giving promotion to the petitioner. The said order dated 12.11.2003 mentions that in a departmental proceeding the petitioner was given a ‘black mark’ which according to Clause-(3) Rule-726 of the police manual remains in force for three years. The award ‘black mark’ was to be effective since 18.1.1996 and thus it had ceased to have its force after 18.1.1999. Thus the only findings of this Court vide the said order dated 12.11.2003 was that the ‘black mark’ awarded to the petitioner will have its force for three years only and that after lapse of three years it will have no repercussion. The main grievance as raised in this contempt application is that the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Jamadar was due on 28.10.1999 but instead of giving him promotion since that date he has been allowed promotion with effect from 5.3.2002. The petitioner contends that while giving promotion the effect of ‘black mark’ has played in the matter of promotion, hence the promotion as given to the - 2 - petitioner with effect from 5.3.2002 be ordered to be preponed to due date on 28.10.1999. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. have submitted that in the said order dated 12.11.2003 only the findings given by this Court was that the ‘black mark’ will remain effective for three years. Further submission is that the matter of promotion as claimed by the petitioner is entirely different and independent matter which is decided on several matters and emanating from a different cause of action and that it has to be decided in a separate writ application and not under this contempt application. It was also submitted that in the context of the promotion which cannot be decided in this contempt application even the effects otherwise do not make out a case of contempt of this court’s said order dated 12.11.2003. Hearing as above, I find that the matter of promotion as raised by the petitioner is an independent cause of action which could be decided in a separate writ application. In the present circumstances the violation of this court’s said order dated 12.11.2003 is not independently established. In the result, there is no substance in the petition. Hence, this petition is dismissed. (C. M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-