IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1345 of 2009 HARENDRA NATH SINHA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 03. 08.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The order on the writ petition was to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of first and second time bound promotion. The order was limited and specific in nature. In view of the order dated 11.11.2009, this Court finds it difficult to proceed in the contempt jurisdiction as the representation has been disposed. However, the order dated 11.11.2009 raises a far more serious issue and the manner in which orders are passed by the State officials in the guise of compliance of the orders of the Court. Suffice it to notice that the order dated 11.11.2009 at page-2 leaves the impression that there had been a break in service of the petitioner. The petitioner has annexed as Annexure-4 in his reply to the show cause of opposite party no.6 that the entire period was directed to be counted in service by order dated 8.6.1982. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court to go into the factual errors and aspersion 2 being caused on the petitioner only after superannuation not raised in his service tenure, this Court feels handicapped to go into these issues in the contempt jurisdiction. This Court is however, satisfied that the recitals in the order dated 11.11.2009 in compliance of the order on the writ petition does raise serious issues for consideration which can only be tested in a writ petition. The contempt proceedings stand disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)