IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4326 of 2009 1. UMESH PANDIT S/O LATE RAMRUP PANDIT R/O CHUNAPUR ROAD, P.O. MADHUBANI, TOWN & DISTT. PURNEA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS THE DEPUTY MANAGER (CASH), KATIHAR BAZAR BRANCH, KATIHAR – Petitioner. Versus 1. SRI OM PRAKASH BHATT S/O NOT KNOWN CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICER, NARIVAN POINT, MUMBAI 2. SRI A. KRISHNA KUMAR, CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, SBI BUILDING, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 3. SRI S.C. MOHANTY, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER N.C.M.-II, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, RANCHI 4. THE STATE OF BIHAR – Opp. Parties. ----------- 5 1.12.2010 The petitioner has filed this contempt petition with the contention that the order of this court has not been followed in its true spirit. The petitioner had filed CWJC No. 2551/2007 which was disposed of on 22.1.2008. Subsequently the respondent State Bank of India filed C. Review No. 66/2008 which was disposed of on 22.1.2009 modifying / clarifying the earlier order by observing that the petitioner’s case for promotion should be considered according to the parameters laid down under the old promotion policy for the purpose of promotion to the scale of M.M.G.S. III in the State Bank of India. While considering the order of this court the State Bank of India took a decision which was communicated vide Annexure 4 apprising the petitioner of the fact that he was not found fit for consideration for promotion to M.M.G.S. III w.e.f. 1.11.1999 as per the old promotion policy. In the show cause filed on behalf of the bank it has been said that the bank realizes that Annexure 4, dated 19.3.2009 is not in accordance with the 2 direction of this court and called the petitioner for interview on 31.7.2010. The contention of the petitioner is that the authorities in the bank knew very well that the petitioner was on leave and deliberately during the said period asked him to appear in the interview and rejected him on various grounds which include the power of expression, social awareness, mental alertness, organizational awareness and general demeanor. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the authorities in the bank had pre decided the issue and were hell bent upon rejecting the petitioner’s claim for promotion which would be apparent from the fact that on whimsical grounds the case of the petitioner was rejected on 19.3.2009. The submission of the petitioner may have some weight considering the circumstances of this particular case. However, this court cannot say that the order of the court has not been complied with. This contempt petition is disposed of with leave to the petitioner to challenge the orders passed by the State Bank of India. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)