R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) Heard the parties at length.
(2.) MR . Mahesh Tewari, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that this interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner for initiating contempt proceeding and punishing the opposite parties for non -compliance of the order dated 13.9.2006 passed in WP (S) No. 2191 of 2006 and also the order dated 15.1.2008 passed in this contempt case; and for directing the opposite parties to recall the order dated 18.3.2008 punishing the petitioner with compulsory retirement (Annexure -7); and thereafter grant him promotion to the post of Chief Engineer with due date. He further submitted that the said order of punishment dated 18.3.2008, and on that basis, not granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Chief Engineer, inspite of the recommendation of the opposite party No. 2, amounts to circumventing the said orders passed by this Court. He further submitted that the charges, said to have been proved against the petitioner, were not serious in nature and there was difference of opinion regarding the quantum of punishment. He relied on paragraph -16 of E.T. Sunup v. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association and Anr. : 2005CriLJ131 . On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite parties, submitted as follows. The merits of the order of punishment dated 18.3:2007 cannot be gone into in this contempt proceeding, which is a fresh and separate cause of action. In the order in question dated 13.9.2006 passed in WP (C) No. 2191 of 2006, this Court noticed the stand of the respondents that petitioner had suffered two punishments in past and moreover, the departmental proceedings were continuing against him. Even during this contempt case, petitioner was asked to reply to the second show cause notice. The charges against the petitioner were proved. There was discussion about the quantum of punishment. In view of the past conduct and repeated punishments, it was decided to punish the petitioner with compulsory retirement, with the approval of the Chief Minister. After considering all the relevant documents and the said order of punishment dated 18.3.2008, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (for short 'the J.P.S.C') which is the competent authority to consider the case of promotion did not find the petitioner's case fit for recommendation for promotion to the post of the Chief Engineer. Thus it cannot be said that the orders of this Court for considering petitioner's case has been violated by the opposite parties. Though the petitioner was not entitled to promotion to the post of the Superintending Engineer, but under the hanging sword of this contempt proceeding, he was given such promotion provisionally, subject to the decision in this case and the outcome of the departmental proceedings. He lastly submitted that it is a settled position that an employee can only complain that his case was not considered, but he cannot claim promotion as a matter of right.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the parties referred to the pleadings and the documents annexed.;