IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC (T) No. 60 of 2008. Decided on: 27th October, 2010. Shyam Lal & anr. .….. Petitioners. Versus Shekhar Gupta. …. .. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner complains that the order dated 30th July, 2004 in OA No. 1985 of 1991 has not been properly complied with. In the preliminary objection of the reply at para 3, it is stated as follows: “However on receiving the contempt notice, to ascertain whether any part of the order dated 30.7.04 had remained un-complied, a Class-I review DPC meeting was also held on 13.5.05 to review the recommendations of DPC meeting held on 11.10.84, 10.9.86, 19.5.84, 25.8.95, 20.12.97 and 22.4.98 regarding promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mechanical). The review DPC meeting perused the Memorandums submitted in the said DPCs and also DPC proceedings of the relevant years and came to the conclusion that no hardship has been caused to the applicants and their promotion against reserved category has been ordered in accordance with the Rules in vogue and application of selection principles at the relevant time. The review DPC has held that there is no material change in the date of their promotion and promotion of applicants ordered vide 2 office order No.264 dated 25.7.03 & No.173 dated 19.8.04 were as per Rules/Regulations.” According to the petitioners, they became eligible in 1985, 1988 and 1990 and there is no review DPC in terms of the order of the Tribunal. In respect of those observations, it is not clear as to whether the backlog vacancies were also taken into consideration in the review DPC held in those years. It cannot be said that there is any willful disobedience of the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue their surviving grievance in appropriate proceedings in terms of the findings in the order of the Tribunal. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 27th October, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (tr) Judge.