IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.329 of 2006 VISHWANATH PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Opp. Parties: Mr.Dhananjay Kumar, JC to GP 12 --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 9th July, 2008 The petitioner has filed this contempt application for taking action against the respondents for non-compliance of the order dated 10th February, 2005. 2. The relevant part of the order dated 10.2.2005 reads thus: “In view of the statements made in paragraphs 4 & 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4, the respondent State authorities are directed to obtain concurrence of the Finance Department forthwith and to grant benefit of second time bound promotion to the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1986 and at the same time they are further directed to release the dearness allowance which is said to have been withheld w.e.f. February, 1990 to the petitioner forthwith. This exercise, however, must be completed within a period not beyond three months from today. In case any decision is taken by the State –authorities in these regards, they will intimate the matter to the Accountant General for issuance of revised Pension Payment Order which 2 shall also be done by the Accountant General without any delay.” 3. The opposite party nos. 1 & 2 have responded to the notice and shown their cause. In paragraphs -4 & 5 following statements have been made: “That on the proposal for confirmation of the second time bound promotion of the petitioner, the Finance Department has given this advice that the petitioner was appointed as Gram Panchayat Supervisor with effect from 1.7.1963 and retired on 30.6.1987. Hence, he has not completed the 25 years requisite qualified service for second time bound promotion. Therefore, the second time bound promotion is not admissible to the petitioner. The promotion granted to the petitioner should be cancelled. As per the advice of the Finance Department, the provisional promotion given to the petitioner has been cancelled vide office order bearing memo no.986 dated 16.3.206. That with regard to the payment of Dearness Allowance, it is submitted that the matter is related with the Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur and the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. The necessary direction has been issued to the authorities concerned vide letter no.1239 dated 28.3.06.” 4. Along with the show cause a copy of the order dated 16.3.2006 and further communication dated 28.3.2006 have been placed on record. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that cancellation of second time bound promotion by the order dated 16.3.2006 is bad in law. We are afraid, this aspect cannot be considered in contempt jurisdiction. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order 3 dated 16.3.2006, he may challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. 6. By way of footnote, we may observe that in the supplementary show cause filed by respondent nos. 1 & 2 a categorical statement has been made that the petitioner has been paid revised pension and dearness allowance. 7. We are satisfied that no further order needs to be passed in this contempt application. 8. MJC stands disposed of accordingly. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the order dated 16.3.2006 in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/