IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3404 of 2005 ARUN KUMAR SINHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Prasad, Adv. For the Opposite parties : Mr. Sanjay Kumar-1, G.P.14 ---------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 8th July, 2008. On 17.5.2005, the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of by the following operative order: - “Substantially, grievances of the petitioners have been redressed and, in my opinion, they may represent their cases for the left over grievances particularly difference of salary before the authorities concerned, which would be considered and disposed of by respondent no. 2, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation.” 2. Consequent upon the order dated 17.5.2005, the petitioner made representation to the Secretary, Road Construction Department, which reads, thus: “I superannuated on 31.1.93 as incharge Chief Engineer but the notification of the govt. granting promotion to the rank of Chief Engineer was not issued during my service tenure as such myself and other similarly situated persons agitated our grievance in writ petition no.5265/04 before Patna High Court. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition the - 2 - respondent State filed a counter affidavit annexing letter no. E Misc. 802/2000, 333(O) dated 10.2.05 whereby I have been given higher scale of Chief Engineer w.e.f. 28.11.90.” After having considered the parties the Hon’ble Court was pleased to dispose of the aforesaid writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file representation for payment of difference of salary which shall be decided within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation. The present representation is thus being filed. I have been given promotion w.e.f. 28.11.90 and superannuated on 31.1.93. The pensionary benefit has been given in terms of letter no.333(O) dated 10.2.05 but the difference of salary w.e.f. the date of promotion, i.e. 28.11.90 to the date of retirement i.e. 31.1.93 has not been given so far. My surviving grievance is limited to the extent that my salary be fixed notionally on higher scale of Chief Engineer w.e.f. on 28.11.90 and thereafter difference of salary till 31.1.93 be given to me in terms of order dated 17.5.05 passed by the Hon’ble Court.” 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he has been given promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, the difference of salary and monetary benefits of the scale of Chief Engineer w.e.f. 28.11.90 until his superannuation (31.1.93) have not been given. 4. The Opposite parties no. 2 to 4 have responded to the notice and shown cause. It transpires there-from that the representation of the petitioner has been considered by the Government by a speaking order dated 30th January 2006, and it has been held that the petitioner is not entitled to monetary benefits as claimed by him consequent upon his promotion to the post of Chief Engineer from 28.11.90. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the - 3 - order dated 30th January, 2006 is legally unsustainable and that can be corrected in contempt jurisdiction. He seeks support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.N.Ramaul v. State of Himachal Pradesh, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1171. 7. In our considered view, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.N.Ramaul (supra) has been passed in exercise of plenary powers conferred upon the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The said decision cannot be applied to the fact-situation of this case. The legality and correctness of the order dated 30th January 2006, cannot be permitted to be put in issue by making contempt application. If aggrieved and advised, the petitioner must pursue an appropriate remedy available in law in assailing the correctness and/or legality of the order dated 30th January 2006. He may also make representation to the State Government for reconsideration of its order dated 30th January 2006, but surely the case in contempt is not made out. 8. M.J.C. is disposed of accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-