IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1883 of 2009 DILIP KUMAR MAHATHA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 4/ 08/12/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand. In C.W.J.C. No. 8074 of 2000 the Court had directed consideration for grant of time bound promotion after ten years of service counted from 9.5.1980. The State had acknowledged the entitlement. A show cause has been filed by opposite party no.2, Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. It states that the opposite party on 28.7.2009 had forwarded the claims of the petitioner to the State of Jharkhand where the services of the petitioner have been allocated consequent to reorganization of the State of Bihar from 15.11.2000. There was thus lack of jurisdiction in the State of Bihar to deal the matter. Another order of the State of Jharkhand dated 13.10.2009 has been filed that the petitioner did not inform the Court that he had been convicted in a criminal case and was therefore not entitled to be considered for time bound promotion and that his case was under consideration for dismissal consequent to conviction - 2 - In C.W.J.C. No. 8074/2000 the State of Jharkhand was not a party respondent. The controversy in this contempt application is confined to the issue of grant of time bound promotion to the petitioner after ten years of service reckoned from 9.5.1980. The reorganization of the State of Bihar came to be made on 15.11.2000. Therefore, if the eligibility for time bound promotion accrued and fructified much before the reorganization of the State, the liability for the same rests with the State of Bihar. The Court is therefore satisfied that the order passed by opposite party no.2 dated 28.7.2009 was in teeth of the order of the Court and the acknowledgment made by the opposite parties during the course of the proceeding. Undoubtedly, the concession made by them before the writ court cannot bind them and they can question it provided the necessary issues are urged. Presently, no such grounds have been urged questioning the concession made by the State. The opposite party no.2 has clearly flouted and disobeyed the orders of the Court. A proceeding in contempt by framing of charges therefore was required to be drawn up against him. However, for reasons discussed hereinafter, the Court in grace refrains from doing so. The reorganization of the State of Bihar was a - 3 - historic exercise with its attendant problems of allocation of cadres, conditions of service, benefits of service, continuity etc. The Court would like to believe that the order dated 27.8.2009 was not passed in a deliberate defiance of the order of the Court but stemmed more from a bona fide opinion or thinking that once the petitioner stood allocated to the State of Jharkhand all liabilities rested there irrespective of all other factors. The impugned order dated 28.7.2009 at annexure-A to the show cause of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 therefore cannot be any impediment to the consideration for grant of benefits of time bound promotion for any period prior to 15.11.2000. Let the State of Bihar pass appropriate orders along with consequential monetary benefits with regard to the period till 14.11.2000. Insofar as the claims of the petitioner in continuity before the State of Jharkhand is concerned, once the State of Bihar passes appropriate orders, the petitioner may ventilate his grievances before the State of Jharkhand. At this stage any orders passed by the State of Jharkhand on 13.10.2009 based on any materials forwarded to it by the State of Bihar cannot be an impediment to consideration of his case in accordance with law. There is no occasion for this Court to test the - 4 - correctness of the order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the State of Jharkhand which was not a party respondent. Let the State of Bihar comply the order within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)