IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2435 of 2006 Mauleshwar Prasad, son of Late Daroga Lal, resident of Mohalla Rajeev Nagar, Patna, P. S. – Digha, District- Patna, presently posted as Managing Director, Bihar State Co-operative, Tobaco Growers Federation Ltd, Gandhi Maidan, Patna. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. A. K. Sinha, Secretary, Co-operative Department, New Secretariat, Patna 3. Pramod Kumar Pandey, Deputy Secretary, Co-operative Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. Shiva Nand Jha, Joint Secretary, Co-operative Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. … Opposite parties. ----------- 15. 16.04.2010 Heard Mr. Vindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The operative portion of the order dated 31.8.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6846 of 2003, violation whereof is alleged in this application, reads as follows:- “… Now in the changed circumstances as indicated above, the proceeding has been concluded and minor punishment has been awarded. One of the punishments was „censure‟ and its life is only for three years and that shall be counted from the date of incident. Thus, on consideration, as discussed above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents/concerned respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar. The entire exercise of consideration must be 2 completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” It is not in dispute that the said order was sought to be complied by passing an order on 20.6.2007 promoting the petitioner on the post of Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies in the pay-scale of Rs.12000-16,500/- with effect from 1.8.2002. It would also appear that on 20.5.2008 after notifying the aforesaid promotion of the petitioner, a fresh order was passed, wherein the seniority and the pay-scale of the earlier promotional order was sought to be varied, allegedly to the detriment of the petitioner. It further transpires that on 10.2.2010 a reasoned order had been passed in compliance of the order dated 31.8.2004 in C.W.J.C. No. 6846 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the opposite parties have found certain grounds for keeping the result of consideration of the case of promotion of the petitioner under sealed cover on account of pendency of a criminal case against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that final order of punishment has now been 3 passed whereby and whereunder certain recovery has been directed to be made from the petitioner and the same has been recently assailed by him in a separate writ petition presented on 13.4.2010. On the basis of aforementioned facts Mr. Singh is quite empathetic that the opposite parties are in contempt specially when they did not comply the order of this Court dated 31.8.2004 in letter and spirit and did not choose to give promotion to the petitioner from the date the juniors were given such promotions. In the opinion of this Court, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 215 read with Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act is very limited. The same cannot be expended beyond the limits of the original order. In this background when it is evident from the aforesaid quoted operative portion of the order of this Court dated 31.8.2004, that this Court has nod expressed any opinion as with regard to grant of promotion to the petitioner much less from a particular date, it would be difficult to hold the opposite parties guilty for contempt on account of passing the fresh order dated 10.2.2010. 4 Infact from the aforementioned events, it would be also clear that there is a fresh cause of action to the petitioner arising out of the subsequent orders passed by the opposite parties for which the petitioner has rightly filed a fresh writ application. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this contempt application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)