IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.634 of 2006
RAM LOCHAN SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
For the petitioner : Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, Adv.
For the State of Jharkhand: Sri Dhruba Mukherjee Sr.
standing counsel to State of Jharkhand.
For the State of Bihar : Lala S. N. Rais J.C. to G.A.-IX.
————–
5. 14.07.2008 In this contempt application, the grievance of the petitioner
is that this court’s order dated 12.11.2003 as passed in CWJC NO.
9549 of 1998 has not been complied in connection with giving
promotion to the petitioner.
The said order dated 12.11.2003 mentions that in a
departmental proceeding the petitioner was given a ‘black mark’
which according to Clause-(3) Rule-726 of the police manual remains
in force for three years. The award ‘black mark’ was to be effective
since 18.1.1996 and thus it had ceased to have its force after
18.1.1999. Thus the only findings of this Court vide the said order
dated 12.11.2003 was that the ‘black mark’ awarded to the petitioner
will have its force for three years only and that after lapse of three
years it will have no repercussion.
The main grievance as raised in this contempt application is
that the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Jamadar was due on
28.10.1999 but instead of giving him promotion since that date he has
been allowed promotion with effect from 5.3.2002. The petitioner
contends that while giving promotion the effect of ‘black mark’ has
played in the matter of promotion, hence the promotion as given to the
-2-
petitioner with effect from 5.3.2002 be ordered to be preponed to due
date on 28.10.1999.
The learned counsel for the O.Ps. have submitted that in the
said order dated 12.11.2003 only the findings given by this Court was
that the ‘black mark’ will remain effective for three years. Further
submission is that the matter of promotion as claimed by the petitioner
is entirely different and independent matter which is decided on
several matters and emanating from a different cause of action and
that it has to be decided in a separate writ application and not under
this contempt application. It was also submitted that in the context of
the promotion which cannot be decided in this contempt application
even the effects otherwise do not make out a case of contempt of this
court’s said order dated 12.11.2003.
Hearing as above, I find that the matter of promotion as
raised by the petitioner is an independent cause of action which could
be decided in a separate writ application. In the present circumstances
the violation of this court’s said order dated 12.11.2003 is not
independently established.
In the result, there is no substance in the petition. Hence,
this petition is dismissed.
(C. M. Prasad, J.)
Ravi/-