CLCON No. 239/2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Mr. J.C. Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pandey, Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondent. Heard and perused the record. Vide order dated 02.06.2010 passed in writ petition No. 394 of 2004 (S/B) the writ Court directed the respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner keeping in view the punishment inflicted upon him on the culmination of the disciplinary enquiry held against him when his claim was placed under the sealed cover by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The writ Court has further directed that in case, the petitioner is found suitable for promotion to the post of Superintendent (Electrical/Mechanical) Grade- I, he shall be promoted as such with effect from the date persons junior to him were promoted to the said post in 1994. Alongwith the compliance affidavit, the respondent has annexed a copy of order dated 23rd February, 2011, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the respondent has reconsidered the matter but the respondent has not considered petitioner’s matter independently and his claim has been rejected merely on the ground that involvement of the petitioner was found in a disciplinary case and penalty inflicted upon him, on culmination of the disciplinary proceedings, vide order dated 19th November, 1996. He submitted that the order dated 19th November, 1996 was challenged in the writ petition and the writ Court, after considering the arguments of the parties directed the respondent’s authority to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and pass fresh order. He further submitted that, in fact, the respondent should have passed a reasoned and detailed order and should not have rejected claim of the petitioner on the basis of earlier order, thus the respondent has clearly violated this Court’s order dated order dated 02.06.2010 passed in writ petition No. 394 of 2004 (S/B). Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that though the order dated 23rd February, 2011 cannot be said to be a reasoned or detailed order, but since the order passed by this Court on 2nd June, 2010 has been complied with, this Court is not proceeding further in the Contempt Petition and is dismissing the same. However, it is open for the contempt petitioner to challenge the order dated 23rd February, 2011, afresh before appropriate forum. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly. Notice issued against respondent stands discharged. (V.K. Bist, J.) 13.06.2011 NCM: