1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4908 OF 1999. 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Regional Dairy Development Officer, New Administrative Building, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. 3. The Dairy Manager, Government Milk Scheme, Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. ... Petitioners. Versus Shrikant S/o Dattuba Raut, R/o Rangnath Take's House, Koshti Galli, Peth, Bhoom, Dist.Osmanabad. ... Respondent. ... Mr.N.P.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the Petitioners. Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 16.06.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. The petitioners take an exception to the order passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad, dated 29.4.1999 in Contempt Petition No.10/1998, by which the petitioners have been directed to absorb the Respondent in Class-III cadre of Laboratory Assistant. The Respondent has filed Original Application No.2534/94 before the Member of the learned Tribunal, claiming his promotion in Class III cadre. Along with the said Application, Misc. Application No.275/1996 was also filed. Vide order dated 24.1.1997, the learned Tribunal disposed of the Misc. Application by observing that the Respondent should be considered for the promotional post of Laboratory Assistant as per merit and seniority. 2. It appears that there are about 84 persons absorbed in Class III cadre and, therefore, the Contempt Petition came to be filed. In the Contempt Petition, the aforesaid order came to be passed by the Tribunal. 3 3. Perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed in Contempt Petition clearly reveals that the petitioners have specifically stated that 84 employees who were regularised in Class-III cadre, were already working on the same posts. It was also pointed out that the case of the Respondent was for promotion from Class IV to Class III cadre and, therefore, the case of the Respondent employee was not on par with that of other 84 employees. 4. We find that the interim relief which was granted by the learned Member of the Tribunal was beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction. By an interim order, the learned Tribunal could not have directed the Petitioners herein to grant promotion to higher post, and that too in contempt jurisdiction. Even on merits we find that the learned Tribunal has erred in granting the relief. The case of the applicant before the Tribunal was not on par with the other 84 employees. The claim of the Respondent was for promotion, whereas the claim of other 84 employees was for absorption in the same cadre. 4 Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). Smt.Kulkarni, learned counsel fairly states that the Contempt Petition itself has been disposed of by the learned Tribunal. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Original Application pending before the learned Tribunal is directed to be decided on merits as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six (6) months from today. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp490899