( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 109 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2618 OF 2007 Shri Ravindra s/o. Pundlik Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Shri A.B. Girase, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent/State. Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 11.09.2009 P.C. :- 1. This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2618 of 2007, decided on 10.12.2008 for taking action under Contempt of Courts Act, against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. This Court has given following directions while deciding the writ petition :- "04. The petitioner to file representation to Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar, within three weeks from today. In case, the ( 2 ) representation is received by Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar, he shall consider the same and communicate the petitioner the ultimate decision taken within eight weeks from the receipt of the report. "05. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.". 2. Para 1 of the order clearly indicates that the Desk Officer of the State of Maharashtra had addressed one letter dated 06.06.2006 to respondent No.2 for filing report. The main grievance of the petitioner was that he came to be promoted in October, 2008, when he should have been promoted much earlier. As per the directions of the Court, the petitioner made representation dated 29th December, 2008, copy of which is produced at Exh. "B" and the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer is at Exh. "C" passed on 18.02.2009. 3. If we consider the order of this Court passed on 10.12.2008, it is mainly question of promotion and delay in giving him promotion on the part of some officers which was the grievance. The Chief Executive Officer has come to a conclusion that as per the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad ( 3 ) District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, Schedule 11 (3) (1) an Accounts Clerk has to pass departmental examination for getting promotion. Present petitioner passed examination in the year 2004. Therefore, he was not entitled to get deemed date from 1999 and it was the date 15.02.2005 given by order dated 16th July, 2007. It is also mentioned in para 2 that the representation bears reference to employees who were not parties to the writ petition and also covers the points which were not raised in the writ petition. Some of them were purely administrative points for which there was no reason for the Chief Executive Officer to give any explanation to the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner as understood by the Chief Executive Officer was that he should have got promotion in 1991 but was not given. If the reasons given in the said letter dated 18.02.2009 by the Chief Executive Officer are perused, the decision to give deemed date 15.05.2005 cannot be said to be wrong, because the petitioner has passed examination in 2004 and there was no question of giving him promotion prior to that date. In para 5 of the counter affidavit, it is mentioned that the petitioner could not have availed five attempts. He has passed requisite examination in the year 2004 in his 5th ( 4 ) attempt and he obtained permission for 5th attempt by misrepresentation. In para 3 of the counter affidavit it is explained that other demands and prayers made in the representation were considered. 4. After hearing all parties, I am satisfied that this contempt petition has no merit. The same deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, the contempt petition is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/cp109.09