IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3999 of 2010 Bateshwar Sharma . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. . ----------- 5. 27.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is not in controversy that the petitioner has been granted promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer from 17.1.1989. The direction was for grant of consequential benefits from the date of promotion also. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the consequential benefits in a retrospective promotion has been granted from 1.3.1990. It is contended that the law on this aspect is too well settled. The opposite parties have not complied the order of the Court and the purported compliance is in teeth of settled law. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to persuade the Court to take any other view permissible in law. Keeping in mind that the non-compliance relates to a period of just over one year, the Court refrains from initiating proceedings in contempt with the observation that if the arrears from 17.1.1989 to 28.2.1990 is not paid within a maximum period of 2 six weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order, serious questions may arise for consideration by the Court if the petitioner is compelled to approach for that relief again. The further question whether the adverse remark on basis of which after consideration the B.P.S.C. had rejected the claim for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer was communicated to the petitioner or not and whether the entries meet the requirement of an adverse remark, are enquiries which cannot be held in the contempt jurisdiction. If so advised, the petitioner may pursue his remedy to that extent in a fresh writ application. The proceeding stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)