IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.607 of 2005 SYED HAIDER ALI RIZVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 03/ 12.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is alleging contempt of the order dated 29.7.1999, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10376 of 1997, Annexure-1, as according to him, in compliance of the direction contained in the said order, the matter was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee under minutes dated 8.12.1999, Annexure-5 and petitioner along with others was recommended for promotion, but in the case of the petitioner promotion order is not being issued, as according to the learned counsel for the State, against the order dated 29.7.1999, Annexure-1, L.P.A. has been preferred, which has been admitted. In the said L.P.A., both counsel for the petitioner and the State admit that stay has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in such circumstances, submitted that State during the pendency of the L.P.A. ought to have issued conditional promotion order as was done in the case of Hiralal Jha and Akhileshwar Thakur in compliance of the orders of this Court, as contained in Annexures-3 and 4. Counsel for the State then submitted that petitioner has also been promoted but not with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from the date of officiation and such promotion with 2 retrospective effect shall be allowed if the L.P.A. is dismissed. As the petitioner has already superannuated and promotion has already been allowed to him, but not with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of officiation, I deem it expedient to dispose of this contempt application with observation that the promotion granted to the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the L.P.A. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)