Judgment R. M. Prasad and j. JJ. 1. Negendra kumar Prasad, opposite party No.1 in the civil review application and the petitioner in the M. J. C. application, had filed writ-petition, bearing C. W. J. C. No 1364 of 1996, in this Court for a direction to the respondents to treat him an appointee of the year 1967 in the light of the office order dated 30th September, 1995, passed by the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department (in short r. C. D. ), contained in Anrtexure 7, and to quash the gradation list dated 3rd August, 1992 so far as it related to him and accordingly to fix his seniority in the gradation list of Assistants of secretariate and Attached Offices, as per the existing rules, and, further, to give him promotion from a date prior to the persons junior to him had been promoted. 2. In the said writ application, a petition at flag a was filed praying for grant of stay of the operation of the notification dated 30th January, 19%, contained in Annexure 9 to the said petition, whereby and whereunder, according to the petitioner, the persons much junior to him had been promoted as Section Officer ignoring his legitimate claim and without fixing his seniority pursuant to the Government order, contained in Annexure 7. 3. The said petition was placed for orders on 15.2.1996, when the learned state Counsel was directed to take full instructions in the matter and file counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents after serving a copy of the same on the learned Counsel for the petitioner on or before 23rd February, 1996. The matter was directed to be listed on 26th February, 1996 under the heading "for Admission" for final disposal. It was made clear that if no counter affidavit was filed, the matter shall be disposed of on the basis of the materials available on the record. 4. The Secretary to the Government and the Additional Secretary, both of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Bihar, patna (in short the Department) were made respondents No.2 and 3, respectively and the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-, additional Commissioner-cum-Special secretary, R. C. D. Bihar, Patna, was made respondent No.4 in the said writ-application. 5. No counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. A counter affidavit was filed only on behalf of respondent No.4. 6. 5. No counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. A counter affidavit was filed only on behalf of respondent No.4. 6. In the said counter-affidavit the facts were not disputed. It was stated that the grievance of the petitioner is already met by the R. C. D. , but the same has not been cleared by the department. In paragraph 5 it was stated that the grievance of the petitioner was founded on the ground that his adjustment as an Assistant could not be done for the period 10.2.1968 to 24.11.70 because of nonavailability of a post of Assistant in the rural Development Department (in short r. D. D. ). Now the joint cadre of assistant is operative and the aforesaid period has been adjusted against he vacant post of Assistant under R. C. D. by respondent No.4, vide Annexure 7. As such, it was stated that the grievance of the petitioner at the level of R. C. D. is patched up. It was also stated that since the aforesaid period has been adjusted by the R. C. D. , the petitioner has become fit and entitled for his seniority as Assistant with effect from 30.1.1967, in view of the order, contained in Annexure 7 and also for other consequential benefits on that basis. It was also stated that the petitioner was not promoted and his name in the seniority list of Assistants prepared by the department occurred much below because, in the meantime, the joint cadre of Assistants became operative with effect from 30.8.1988 and the service of the petitioner was not counted with effect from 30.1.1967. It was also admitted in the said counter affidavit that since by order, contained in Annexure the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant has been given with effect from 30.1.1967, his seniority will be reckoned from that date and that the correction in regard to the seniority of the petitioner has to be done by respondents No.2 and 3 and that the said respondents have to rectify the gradation list and provide other consequential benefits to the petitioner accordingly. In paragraph 14 of the said counter-affidavit it was stated that the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No.1140 in the gradation list issued by the Department because the r. D. D. could not adjust the petitioners posting as an Assistant for the period spent as Routine Clerk during 10.2.1968 to 24.11.1970, although steps were taken by the Department to make adjustment by creating shadow post of assistant, but it could not be finalised. In paragraph 18 it was stated that after the adjustment, vide Annexure 7, the petitioner deserves to avail the benefit of seniority with effect from 30-1- 1967 and respondents No.2 and 3 have to take steps for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner on the basis of Annexure V/s. 7. The matter was finally heard and disposed of by order dated 29.2.1996 wherein this Court did not find any justification for with holding the consequential placement of the petitioner in the gradation list and/or his promotion over those who although, as per Annexure 7, are junior to the petitioner, but were promoted, in the meantime, Accordingly, the writ application was allowed. The Secretary to the Government of the Department (respondent No.2) was directed to issue the necessary orders of modification of the 1992 gradation list as well as the orders of promotions with effect from due date as a consequence of the order, contained in Annexure 7, within one month of the receipt of a copy of the said order. 8. The State of Bihar and respondents nos.2 and 3 of the said writ application have filed the above noted civil Review No.101 of 19% against the aforementioned order dated 29.2.1996 on 17.5.1996 after the expiry of the limitation prescribed for filing of the letters patent appeal and only after the above noted M. J. C. No.1078 of 1996 for initiating contempt proceeding was filed. 9. 9. In the said Civil Review applica-tion the petitioners, while admitting the fact that no counter-affidavit was filed on their behalf in the connected writ-petition, have attempted to contest the writ-petition, which already stands disposed of on merits, so much so that it has been alleged that the Engineer-in-Chief, R. C. D. was not empowered to pass such an order and that as soon as the Department came to know about the said order of regularisation, a show cause was issued and an explanation was sought for from the said Engineer-in-Chief. 10. However, no copy of such cause has been annexed to the review application. I am surprised to find such a contention being raised in the review application, for the first time on 17th may, 19% when the affidavit of it was sworn by the Deputy Secretary of the department. In fact, from the review application itself as well as from the statement made in paragraph 17 of the writ-petition, I find that the writ-petitioner had moved this Court earlier in C. W. J. C. No.12066 of 1992 for a relief that he should be appropriately placed in the seniority list treating him an appointee of the year 1967. The said writ application was finally heard and order was reserved on 15.5.1995. 11. While the judgment was reserved, the Engineer-in-Chief (respondent No.4) of the writ-petition)issued office order, contained in Annexure 7, whereby and where under the service rendered by the petitioner during the period 10.2.1968 to 24.11.1970 has been treated/adjusted as lower Division Assistant in the R. C. D. against the vacant post for the purpose of pay fixation and seniority. The petitioner was treated to be Assistant and consequently, he was declared to be on probation after expiry of three years from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of seniority as an assistant. However, by the said order, the monetary benefit was not granted to the petitioner. 12. The petitioner thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit along with which he also filed the aforesaid office order and sought permission from the court to withdraw the said writ-peti-tion, which was dismissed as having become in fructuous. However, by the said order, the monetary benefit was not granted to the petitioner. 12. The petitioner thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit along with which he also filed the aforesaid office order and sought permission from the court to withdraw the said writ-peti-tion, which was dismissed as having become in fructuous. Thereafter the writ-petitioner made a representation before the Secretary of the Department (respondent No.2) on 22.11.1995 for redressal of his grievance relating to his appropriate placement in the seniority list treating him an appointee of the year 1967 by making amendment in the gradation list published on 3rd August, 1992 (Annexure 6) and also to promote him on the higher post from a date prior to his juniors had been promoted. The petitioner gave reminders and when he failed to get any relief from respondent no.2,he filed the writ-petition (C. W. J. C. No.1364 of 1996) in this court after he learnt that his juniors were being promoted. 13. The petitioners of the review application did not bother to contest the writ-petition filed by the petitioner by filing counter affidavit and presenting their case before this Court and now by way of review they have virtually attempted to contest the writ-petition which is not the scope of the review. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of A. T. Sharma V/s. A. P. Sharma [ (AIR 1979 S. C.1047) held that there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. According to the Apex court, the power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him- at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found ; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. The Court held that the aforementioned grounds would be the province of a court of appeal and the power of review is not to be confused with the appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate courts. The Court held that the aforementioned grounds would be the province of a court of appeal and the power of review is not to be confused with the appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate courts. It cannot be disputed that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not precluded from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent the miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it, but in view of the above mentioned principles laid down by the Apex Court, the review-application can be entertained only on the aforementioned grounds. 15. In the instant case, the petitioners of the review-application have not invoked the power of review on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within their knowledge or the same could not be produced by them at the time when the order was made. 16. From the facts aforementioned it is evident that the petitioners of the review-application were fully aware of the entire facts when the writ-petition was finally heard and disposed of on the basis of the materials available on the record, about which they had sufficient notice. No objection was ever raised their behalf while the writ-petition was finally heard and disposed of. It is not pleaded in the review-application that any mistake or error apparent on the face of record has occurred nor any ground analogous thereto has been made out to entertain the review application. The petitioner of the review-application have virtually tried to assail the decision taken in the writ case on the ground that it was erroneous on merits which, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the a. T. Sharma V/s. A. P. Sharma (Supra), is not permissible. 17. Thus, I do not find any merit in the review-application and the same is dismissed. 18. Now I take up M. J. C. No.1078 of 1996 in which the writ-petitioner, who is the petitioner, has prayed for initiation of a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for deliberately violating the aforementioned order dated 29.2.1996 passed in the connected writ case, bearing c. W. J. C. No.1364 of 1996. 19. 18. Now I take up M. J. C. No.1078 of 1996 in which the writ-petitioner, who is the petitioner, has prayed for initiation of a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for deliberately violating the aforementioned order dated 29.2.1996 passed in the connected writ case, bearing c. W. J. C. No.1364 of 1996. 19. The said M. J. C. application had been heard on several dates. Vide order dated 6.5.1996, the opposite parties, who are Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government and the Additional secretary of the Department were directed to file show cause and also to appear in person, on 20th May, 19%. However, it was farther ordered that if necessary notification/order in compliance of the aforesaid, order of this-court is issued, then the personal appearance of the opposite parties shall stand dispensed with, but the said notification/order must be brought on record by filing an affidavit on their behalf. 20. A show cause was filed on behalf of the opposite parties and a reply thereto was filed on behalf of the petitioner. 21. After going through the said show cause and the reply filed oh behalf of the petitioner, this Court, vide order dated 23.5.1996, prima facie, was of the view that the order of this Court had not been complied despite the indulgence granted vide earlier order. However, on the request of the learned counsel for the State to take instruction in regard to the reply affidavit of the petitioner and bring on record the required notification giving the petitioner due promotion as per the direction of this Court, the Court directed to place the matter on 24th May, 1996 to bring on record either the said notification or opposite party No.2 was required to appear in Court. 22. However, the mateer was taken up on 24th June, 1996 after summer vacation when neither the notification nor opposite party No.2 had appeared. Learned Standing Counsel No. VII tried to persuade that the order of this Court stood complied. When the matter was heard at length, a prayer was made for listing the matter for further hearing on 26th June, 1996 when the opposite party no.2 would appear in this Court. On 26th June, 1996 opposite party No.2 appeared in Court and after the matter was heard for quite some time he expressed some difficulties in complying with the direction of this Court. On 26th June, 1996 opposite party No.2 appeared in Court and after the matter was heard for quite some time he expressed some difficulties in complying with the direction of this Court. However, when the things were clarified, a prayer was made for adjournment of this case, so that in the meantime, the record from the concerned Department is called for by him and on examination of the same, necessary notification is issued complying with the direction of this Court. This matter was again postponed to 1st July, 19% to be listed at the top of the list. On 1st June, 1996, a supplementary counter-affidavit was served on the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Court. As such, on the prayer being made on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned and further appearance of opposite party No.2 was dispensed with, for the time being. However, for the first time on 2nd August, 19%, learned Standing counsel No. VIII mentioned about the aforesaid Civil Review application and, accordingly, this MJ. C. application was directed to be listed with the said Civil review application, which has now been disposed of by this order. 23. In the show cause filed on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 on 22.5.1996, sworn by the Secretary of the department, it is stated that in compliance of the order of this Court, necessary steps have already been taken and the gradation list of 1992 has. been amended and the seniority of the petitioner has also been refixed at serial no.149-Ka, i. e. in between 149 and 150 to enable and entitle the petitioner for all consequential benefit, vide Office order No.447 dated 18.5.1996. A photo copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure A. In paragraph 5 of the said show cause it is stated that in compliance of the order of this Court, necessary procedures regarding refixa-tion of seniority were initiated and fixed accordingly and that after refixation of the seniority of the petitioner, the dates are being located and verified as to from which date the promotions of the petitioner were due so that the same may be given accordingly and immediately. It was further stated that after the due date for promotion is located, the same is to be sent in a proposal to obtain the recommendation of the departmental Promotion Committee and that any notification can be issued only after the recommendation of the departmental Promotion Committee which is expected shortly after. 24. I would like to mention here that the order of this Court in the connected writ case was to issue necessary orders of modification of 1992 gradation list as well as the orders of promotions with effect from due date as a consequence of the aforesaid order, contained in Annexure 7, within one month of the receipt of a copy of the order. The certified copy of the said order was produced by the petitioner along with a representation before opposite party No 2. on 16.3.1996. Thus, from the said show cause it is evident that no action whatsoever was taken by the said opposite party within the time fixed for complying this Courts order until the present MJ. C. application was file on 30th April, 1996. 25. However, on 1st July, 1996, a supplementary counter-affidavit sworn by opposite party No.2 was filed in wich it is stated that in a compliance of the order passed in the connected writ case the necessary orders of modification of 1992 gradation list as well as the orders of promotions with effect from due date have already been issued. It is further stated that as a consequence of this, the petitioner has been upgraded in the seniority list at serial No.149-Ka and, accordingly, given three promotions in Junior Selection Grade, in Senior Selection grade and to Section Officer with effect from 30.8.1988, 30.8.1991 and 9.12.1994, vide annexures B, C, D and E, respectively of the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on 22.5.96. 26. In regard to the case of the petitioner that 23 persons named in An-aexure 3 to the MJ. 26. In regard to the case of the petitioner that 23 persons named in An-aexure 3 to the MJ. C. application, who were junior to the petitioner, were granted promotion in the Selection grade as well as Section Officer with effect from much prior date, it was stated in paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter-affidavit that steps have already been taken to obtain the necessary records relating to those persons in order to examine those cases and issue notification and the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, R. C. D. has already been requested, vide letter dated 26.6.1996 (Annexure F) and reminder was also sent to him to send the desired records immediately, vide letter dated27.6. l996 (Annexure G ). Thus, in paragraph 7 it is stated that despite all efforts, the deponent has not received the desired records from the aforesaid Commissioner. However, for the first time, it was stated that the Commissioner, r. C. D. vide letter No.4321 dated 27.6.1996, has communicated to opposite party No.2 that all the 23 persons were Assistants in the then Public works Department (in short p. W. D. ), on the basis of which for the first time in paragraph.8 of the show cause, a stand has been taken on behalf of the opposite partie s that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Rural engineering Organisation (in short r. E. C. ) and borne on the cadre of assistants of R. D. D. whereas the aforementioned 23 persons were appointed and bo rne on the cadre of Assistants of the then P. W. D. As such, the aforementioned 23 persons were born on a cadre different from that of the petitioner prior to 30.8.1988 and no inter seniority cam be drawn between the petitioner and the persons belonging to another cadre. However, in paragraph 11 of the said affidavit it is stated that although the service books of the petitioner and the persons shown in Annexure 3 of the rejoinder have not been sent by the R. D. D. as yet for verification of their dates of appointment, it is well evident that out of 213 Assistants shown in Annexure 3 of the rejoinder, 22 were promoted to the post of selection Grade prior to 30.8.1988 and they find their place in the combined gradation list of selection Grade Assistants prepared by the Department in pursuance of section 4 of Bihar Act 9 of 1989 under which a joint cadre of Assistants of the secretariat and its allied officer was prepared. As regards the person at serial No.8 of Annexure 3, it is stated that it can be verified after getting the necessary records from R. C. D. 27. The opposite parties have also attempted to defend themselves on the basis of the representation of the petitioner, addressed to the Joint secretary of the Department (Annexure l) or taking the plea that in the said representation it has been stated by the petitioner that he had been transferred from Patna Office of the R. E. C. to the branch Secretariat, Ranchi of the r. D. D. and expressed his personal difficulties and requested for his posting in some other department in Patna, on consideration of which he was transferred to R. C. D. , vide office order, contained in memo No.51 dated 6.2.1993 of the Department and since then he is in r. C. D. A photo copy of the said office order has been annexed as Annexure M. 28. I an unable to appreciate the aforesaid defence of the opposite parties. The representation (Annexure L)was filed by the petitioner in January, 1993. In the said representation the petitioner only stated that on the date of representation he was working as a selection Grade Assistant in the R. D. D. and after expressing his personal difficulties requested for his transfer in any department in the Secretariat. The representation (Annexure L)was filed by the petitioner in January, 1993. In the said representation the petitioner only stated that on the date of representation he was working as a selection Grade Assistant in the R. D. D. and after expressing his personal difficulties requested for his transfer in any department in the Secretariat. He mentioned that there are only three vacancies available in the R. C. D. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner claimed in the said representation that he belongs to R. E. O. or R. D. D. The representation was made to the Joint secretary of the E > epartment as obviously in 1993 the power of transfer was vested in the Department after the formation of the joint cadre. Moreover, in annexure M there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner originally belonged to R. E. O. of R. D. D. 29. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner it is stated that the opposite party No.2 is intentionally trying to mislead the Court that prior to 1988, the cadres of P. W. D. and the r. E. O. were separate. According to the petitioner, the opposite party No.2 has intentionally suppressed the material fact that the State Government by a cabinet decision dated 16th March, 1982, contained in Resolution No.878 (Annexure 6) while reorganising the engineering units dealing with Road and Building Construction, merged the r. E. O. with R. C. D. According to the aforesaid resolution, construction of all government buildings was entrusted to the newly created Building Construction Department and construction of all the roads, including under R. E. O. was entrusted to the R. C. D. As per pragraph 11 of the said resolution, the joint cadre of Subordinate Secretariat officers of R. C. D. and R. E. O. was formed and as per paragraph 13 of the said resolution it would appear that r. E. O. and the control of cadre thereof, including Ministerial and Secretariat staff came under the control of R. C. D. with effect from 1.4.1982. It is also stated that the merger of R. E. O. with r. C. D. was made effective as would appear from the fact that the budget heads of R. E. O. were transferred to r. C. D. according to paragraph 10 of the said resolution. It is also stated that the merger of R. E. O. with r. C. D. was made effective as would appear from the fact that the budget heads of R. E. O. were transferred to r. C. D. according to paragraph 10 of the said resolution. It will appear from r. C. D. Letters No.2882 (S) dated 9.7.1983, 349 dated 29.1.1984 and 2908 dated 8.7.1984 that the adjustment of posts of Chief Engineers with staff, making permanent of temporary posts of Gazetted and Non-Gazetted posts of r. E. O. and including their creation were made by the R. C. D. itself. Photo copies of the letters have been annexed as Annexures 7, 8 and 9, respectively to this affidavit. 30. In support of the merger it is also stated in the said affidavit that the r. C. D.- erstwhile P. W. D, vide Notification No.2140 dated 24.6.1985, gave seniority to a District Engineer belonging to the R. U. E. O. with effect from 1.2.1967, vide Annexure 10. It is, thus, contended that the R. C. D. rightly adjusted the services of the petitioner from 10.2,1968 to 24.11.1970 by the order, contained in Annexure 4 to the present contempt petition which was annexure 7 to the connected writ application and that there is no substance in the plea of opposite party No.2 that the seniority cannot be given to the petitioner with effect from a date prior to merge as the petitioner belongs to another Cadre. The petitioner has also annexed the copy of the judgment of this Court passed in C. W. J. C. No.5604 of 1994 and its analogous cases to show that the petitioners of those cases whose names were mentioned in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit under reply were placed in between serials nos.1603 and 1887 in the gradation list of joint cadre of Secretariat and Attached Offices Assistants published in the year 1992 and are appointees of the year 1980 onwards, have been promoted with effect from 7.9.1987, i. e. from a date prior to merger and formation of the joint cadre of Assistants whereas the petitioner who was placed in the aforesaid gradation list at serial No.1140, which on rectification is now at serial no 149, K, has been deliberately denied the due promotion on one pretext or the other. 31. 31. In the reply to the rejoinder, opposite party No.2 has stated that the aforementioned resolution (Annexure 6) relating to amalgamation could not be implemented due to administrative reasons and the R. E. O. remained and continued to function independently as before. Hence by. another resolution of 1986, the R. E. O. Department was formally returned to its parent department, i. e. , R. C. D. Thereafter with the coming up the Bihar Act 9 of 1989, all resolutions contrary to the provisions under sections 3 and 9 of the said Act stood repealed with effect from 30.8.1988. As such, according to the opposite party, the petitioner remained all along under r. E. O. up to 30.8.1988 and never remained in the R. C. D. , 32. Mr. Yugal Kishore. learned standing Counsel No. VII submitted that generally the departments and offices of the Heads of the Departments prior to 30.8.1988 had their own separate cadres of Assistants and an assistant allotted to or appointed in a particular department or office of the Head of the Department remained confined to that cadre and promotions were admissible to him according to the vacancy available in that very cadre. On 30.8.1988 all cadres of Assistants were amalgamated into one cadre under the provisions of the Bihar Act 9 of 1989. Thus, it was contended by him that prior to 30.8.1988 the petitioner was an Assistant of R. D. D. and he was never and Assistant in the cadre of R. C. D. and he is trying to mislead the Court and is trying to insert himself in the then graduation list of the Assistants of R. C. D. retrospective effect i. e. , prior to 30.8.1988 whereas during that period the Assistants cadre of R. C. D. was different cadre. Accordingly, it was submitted that there was no grievance of the petitioner to be redressed by the opposite parties herein since they have already complied with the order of this court and have not violated the order of this Court. As such, it was submitted that the contempt petition is fit to be dismissed. 33. I am unable to appreciate the dilly-dallying attitude and shifting stand of the opposite parties in the present case. As such, it was submitted that the contempt petition is fit to be dismissed. 33. I am unable to appreciate the dilly-dallying attitude and shifting stand of the opposite parties in the present case. Firstly, I do not appreciate the defence which is now being taken in the contempt matter in order to defeat the order of this Court passed in the writ case which binds the parties. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 were also parties to the writ-petition and they did not choose to contest it. 34. It is well settled that the binding character of judgments/orders pronounced by the Courts of competent jurisdiction is itself an essential part of the rule of law and the rule of law obviously is the basis of the administration of justice on which the Constitution laws so much emphasis. It is also well settled that disobedience of an order of a court whether prohibitive or mandatory, whether made ex-pane or upon hearing both the parties, or interim or perpetual amounts to contempt if it is calculated or tends to interfere with the administration of justice or brings it in disrespect or disregard, though it might not be founded and though it might not be interfered with the administration of justice. The knowledge of an order is quite sufficient to constitute contempt if it is violated. 35. This Court, after considering the facts which were placed on the record, disposed of the writ application with the aforementioned direction. Consequently, the due seniority of the petitioner in the gradation list of the joint cadre was granted by placing him at serial NO.149-K, vide Annexure A and thereby, the opposite parties herein accepted the order of the Engineer- in-Chief of R. C. D. , contained in Annexure 4 in this M. J. C. matter which was Annexure 7 in the writ case, by virtue of which the date of appointment of the petitioner as Assistant was finally declared with effect from 28th January, 1967. This obviously made the petitioner appointee as Lower Division assistant in R. C. D. from a date much prior to those persons mentioned in annexure 3. 36. This obviously made the petitioner appointee as Lower Division assistant in R. C. D. from a date much prior to those persons mentioned in annexure 3. 36. The said 23 persons have been promoted in the Selection Grade in between 29.6.1984 and 7.9.1987 and as section Officer in between 7.3.1991 and 30.8.1993 whereas the petitioner has been granted Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade from 30.8.1988 and 30.8.1991, respectively and as Section Officer with effect from 9.12.1994. Undisputedly, no action was taken by the opposite parties pursuant to the direction of this Court within the time fixed by this Court and even after the order dated 26.6.1996 was passed -when the things were clarified and a prayer was made on behalf of the opposite parties for adjournment of the case so that, in the meantime, necessary notification is issued complying with the direction of this Court. Later, in the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on 1st July, 1996 the opposite parities for the first time took a stand that the petitioner and the aforementioned 23 persons were appointed and born on different cadres of R. C. D. and the then p. W. D. respectively and that prior to 30th August, 1988 generally the Departments and officers of the heads of the departments had their own separate cadres of Assistants and they remained confined to respective departments and promotions were admissible to them according to the vacancy available in that very cadre. In application for review the stand taken by the opposite party was that the engineer-in-chief R. C. D. was not conferred to pass order regularising the service of petitioner from 1967 and that the show cause was issued to the Engineer in chief and an explaination was sought from him. 37. In paragraph 8, of the reply to the rejoinder filed on 31st July, 1996, oppsist party No.2 preferred not to make any comment about the decision of the R. C. D. regarding the adjustment of the services of the petitioners from 10.2.1968 to 24.11.1970. 38. From the aforementioned shifting stand of the opposite parties shows that they are only trying to take some kind of unfounded defence for their action in disobedience of the direction of this Court given in the order passed in the connected writ case. 38. From the aforementioned shifting stand of the opposite parties shows that they are only trying to take some kind of unfounded defence for their action in disobedience of the direction of this Court given in the order passed in the connected writ case. In my opinion, such pleas cannot be accepted in the present contempt matter when the opposite parties did not choose to contest the writ-petition by filing counter affidavit taking these pleas. In another plea the opposite parties have tried to defeat the claim of the petitioner in compliance of the direction of this court that the petitioner is claiming seniority and consequential promotion from the gradation list of Road and building Construction Department on the basis of unimplemented and repealed resolution of the Government and that too after lapse of 14 years. 39. I am surprised to find such a plea being taken by the opposite parties. I have already noticed above that after filing of C. W. J. C. No.12066 of 1992 in regard to the claim of the petitioner to treat him an appointee of the year 1967 in the R. C. D. , good sense prevailed upon the respondents and he has been allowed due seniority for the period 10.2.1968 to 24.11.1970, vide order dated 30th September, 1995 (Annexure 7 to the connected writ case and Annexure 4 to the present M. J. C. matter ). The petitioner thereafter as a follow-up action raised his claim in regard to the consequential promotion and fixation of seniority in the joint cadre in the departments of the Government, but having failed, filed the connected writ case in which the aforementioned order disposing of the writ-petition was passed. Once the relief has been granted to the petitioner in regard to his claim for treating him an Assistant in the r. C. D. on 30th September, 1995, his claim regarding consequential promotion could not validly be denied, particularly after re-fixation of his seniority, vide Annexure A. 40. I have already held above that such defence cannot be entertained in a contempt application alleging violation of the judgment/order of this Court passed in the writ case, particularly when the opposite parties did not choose to contest by filing counter affidavit taking the aforementioned objections. Moreover, I do not find any merit in the aforementioned objections of the opposite parties. Moreover, I do not find any merit in the aforementioned objections of the opposite parties. In fact, the Government Resolution of the year 1982, contained in Annexure 6, read with the government Resolution of the year 1986, contained in Annexure 11, and the consequential actions taken by the authorities, contained in Annexures 7, 8, 9 and 10, leave no room for doubt that the cadre of Assistants, while reorganising the Engineering Units dealing with Road and Building Construction department, R. E. O. with R. C. D. were merged and the ministerial cadre of the r. C. D. and R. E. O. were brought into the same cadre in the year 1982 and vide resolution dated 13th February, 19 (Annexure 11), the control of their cadre remained with the R. C. D. 41. In support of the same, the petitioner has brought Annexures 7,8, 9 and 10 on the record whereas the opposite parties have not brought any cogent material to demonstrate that the cadres remained separate. However, the opposite parties have tried to place reliance on the order of the Supreme court in Civil Appeal No.1361 of 1990, contained in Annexure M, in support of their contention that the Government resolutions of the years 1982 and 1986 were not, in fact, implemented with respect to the Assistants of P. W. D. and r. E. O. 42. I do not find anything in the said order of the Supreme Court in regard to the aforesaid Government resolutions. It appears that the said petition was filed against the judgment of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.6581 of 1989 whereby this Court upheld the validity of the Assistants of the secretariat and Attached Offices Joint cadre Ordinance, 1989 which since had become in Act. In the said case contrary to the Cabinet decision dated 27th May, 1967 recruitment was centralised and thereafter the selected candidates were allocated to different departments and they had to them look to that department for their promotions. It was contended that the Cabinet, vide its decision dated 27th May, 1967, took a policy decision and communicated the same to the Heads of the Departments stating that the subsequent promotions will not be valid. However, no formal rule was framed nor any amendment was made to that extent in the rules. As such, department wise promotion continued. It was contended that the Cabinet, vide its decision dated 27th May, 1967, took a policy decision and communicated the same to the Heads of the Departments stating that the subsequent promotions will not be valid. However, no formal rule was framed nor any amendment was made to that extent in the rules. As such, department wise promotion continued. Six years later, the High Court granted the mandamus to implement the decision of 27th May, 1967 and subsequent, orders were also made following the said decision. To protect the promotions made between 1967 and 1988 and to overcome the difficulties arising from the Courts order, section 9 was enacted. 43. The contention was that the decision of 27th May, 1967 created a vested right traceable to Articles 14 and 16 which could not be taken away by statutory provisions, such as, section 9 of the Act. This Court negatived the contention holding that it was merely a policy decision which was not translated into a rule as several objections were received which had to be sorted out, but the mandamus issued by the High Court compelled implementation. It was, thus, held that once the decision of 27th May 1967, was effected by the Ordinance/act, the question of implement-ing that decision does not survive. The supreme Court held that the said con-clusaion of this Court does not suffer from any infirmity requiring interference in appeal. 44. In the present case, it is not pleaded that any objections were received against the State Governments resolutions of 1982 and 1986 which had to be sorted out and, thus, the same were not implemented. However, the facts and the question involved in the said civil appeal before the Apex Court in the aforesaid case was quite different and has no bearing over the facts of the present case. However, the facts and the question involved in the said civil appeal before the Apex Court in the aforesaid case was quite different and has no bearing over the facts of the present case. In the present case the r. C. D. has simply corrected me error committed in past by issuing the order contained in Annexure 4 (Annexure 7 to the connected writ case) adjusting/regularising the services rendered by the petitioner from 10.2.1968 to 24.11.1970 against the vacant post of assistant in the R. C. D. (P. W. D.) with the condition that the petitioner would not be entitled for any monetary benefit arrising therefrom, but he would be entitled for the benefit of pay fixation and seniority as a consequence thereof and for the purpose of seniority he would be deemed to be on probation after completion of three years of service from the date of initial appointment. Once this decision has been taken by the government, the petitioner cannot legitimately be denied the consequential benefits proving therefrom, including that of promotions. 45. I have already held above, that the cadre of Assistants of R. E. O. had merged with the P. W. D. on creation of new R. C. D. and the ministerial officers of the two departments were brought into one cadre of the R. C. D. in the year 1982 and continued till its merger and formation of joint cadre on 30th august, 1988 and as such, the petitioner was rightly adjusted in the aforementioned service against the vacant post in the R. C. D. giving him the benefit of pay fixation and seniority arising therefrom. 46. Undisputedly, the persons mentioned in Annexure 3 were appointed and put on probation later than the petitioner and thus, the petitioner is entitled for promotion in the Selection grade as well as Section Officer at least with effect from a date when they were promoted. This having not been done in compliance of the order of this Court passed in the connected writ case, in my opinion, the opposite parties have acted in utter intentional disregard of the order of this Court as is also evident from order dated 26.6.19%, when things were clarified and the opposite parties took time to issue notification in compliance of the direction of this Court, still no notification has been issued. 47. 47. Accordingly, the opposite parties are held guilty for committing contempt of this Court. However, considering the apology tendered by the opposite parties, they are given an opportunity to purge themselves by issuing the necessary order/notification granting promotion to the petitioner with effect from a date when the aforementioned 23 persons were granted promotion as Section Officer with monetary benefit and bring it on record by filing affidavit within one week from today, failing which this court will consider to impose appropriate punishment for the said disobedience of this Courts order by them. Order accordingly