IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2635 of 2010 NAND KISHORE JHA, S/O LATE GANESH JHA, R/O LOHIA NAGAR, WARD NO. 25,P.S.-TOWN, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI AT PRESENT WORKING AS AN EXCISE CONSTABLE, C/O SUPERTINTENDENT OF EXCISE, SARAN, CHAPRA AND PRESENTLY ON DEPUTATION AT SHEIKHPURA DISTRICT. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, NAMELY SRI ANUP MUKHERJEE, S/O NAME NOT KNOWN, BIHAR, PATNA. 2.SRI AMIR SUBHANI, S/O NAME NOT KNOWN, THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.MISS BANDANA PREYASI, THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4.SRI RAM LAKHAN SAHANI, S/O NAME NOT KNOWN, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, BIHAR, PATNA. 5.SRI SANTOSH KUMAR MALL, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN, THE COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA. 6.SRI KRISHNA KUMAR, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, SARAN, CHAPRA. …………CONTEMNORS…………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 18.03.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Counsel for the petitioner, in view of the order passed by this Court dated 07.07.2009, in C.W.J.C NO. 6742 of 2007, would submit that though an order of promotion of the petitioner has been issued on 16.08.2010, but he has not been given retrospective promotion from the date of promotion of Md. Zahir. In the considered opinion of this court, this part of grievance of the petitioner cannot be gone into in a contempt petition inasmuch as, in the earlier round 2 of writ application no firm date of promotion of the petitioner was fixed much less directed to be given to him. That being so, if the petitioner has already been given promotion as is admitted by him, there would be no need to continue with this contempt application. Learned counsel for the petitioner would however submit that when this Court, in the order in question passed in writ petition had used the expression "same wavelength and same parameter", it had necessarily meant that the petitioner had to be given promotion from the date on which Md. Zahir was given such promotion. In the considered opinion of this Court, such impression of the petitioner is wholly misconceived inasmuch as when this Court had directed for considering the case of promotion of the petitioner on same wavelength and same parameters, as allowed in the case of Md. Zahir, it never meant to also give promotion to the petitioner from the same date on which Md. Zahir was given such promotion. The parity of the case of the petitioner with Md. Zahir was confined to relaxation of his age as allowed in the case of Md. Zahir which enabled him to get his 3 promotion. The opposite parties infact have granted similar relaxation of age on the basis of which he too was given promotion. If the petitioner however would insist for grant of his promotion from the same date as given to Md. Zahir that would require fresh examination initially by the departmental authorit6y before its being adjudicated by this Court in a fresh writ application. That being so, this application has become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)