IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.620 of 2003 YUBRAJ PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha No. 2 For the State : Mr. Md. Fazal Rahman, G. P. 6 For the Board : Mr. Amitabh Kumar ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 7th July, 2008. The grievance of the petitioner in this M.J.C. application is with regard to non compliance of the order dated 14.11.2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10692 of 2000. The order, to the extent it is relevant, reads thus : “Under the circumstances, respondent - Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board is directed to consider the claims of the petitioners for their promotion in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In case the authorities will be satisfied that due promotion be given to the petitioners, consequential benefits will be given to them forthwith.” Show cause has been filed by the Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board by their counter affidavit and then by a supplementary counter affidavit dated 9.3.2007. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the supplementary show cause reads thus : “3. That from perusal of the aforesaid order (Ann. B), it is apparent that the petitioner’s claim was independently considered by the then C.E.O. and found - 2 - that he has already got two time bound promotion during entire service period and monetary benefit has also been paid to him. 4. That since, by the order of the state Government, contained in Annexure-A of the show cause, the total vacancies of the non-plan head was declared as dying cadre from 11.7.2002, as such there is no sanctioned post of non-plan head from 11.7.2002. 5. That the then Chief Executive Officer rejected the representation of the petitioner on the aforesaid two grounds on 6.12.2003 (Ann.B) and the same was communicated to him vide memo no. 1315 dated 6.12.2003. “ For the cause shown by the Board, we are satisfied that nothing further needs to be done in the contempt petition. It is needless to say that if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the legality and correctness of the order dated 3.12.2003, he may proceed to assail it in accordance with law in an appropriate proceeding. The M.J.C. is, thus, disposed of. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-