Respondents were put to notice for non-compliance of interim order dated 3-6-2003 passed in SWP No. 938/2003 which reads as under: "Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks. CMP No. 969/2003 CMP is disposed of with the direction to the respondent that in case any promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, mechanical Wing is required to be made that should be strictly made in accordance with J&K Engineering (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1978, that is to say 80% by promotion from Class III Category `A from amongst persons possessing Bachelors Degree in Engineering with 7 years service experience in the appropriate line and 20% by promotion from Class III category "A" amongst Diploma Holders having at least 10 years service experience in that category. Provided that the number of Diploma Holders to be promoted from amongst the eligible persons shall not exceed 20% at any point of time." 2. The allegations contained in the contempt petition are that despite the communication of the afore-said interim order, Government has ordered promotion of Assistant Executive Engineers belonging to Mechanical Wing of the Jammu and Kashmir Engineering (Gazetted) Service to the post of Executive Engineer and one Bodh Raj, Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) has been promoted in gross violation to the interim direction of the Court. It is stated in the contempt petition that Bodh Raj was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 27-12-2001 vide Govt Order No. 547- Works of 2001 dated 27-12-2001 and was posted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Mech) vide Govt Order No. 104-Works of 2002 dated 4-3-2002 figuring at S.No. 101. Said Bodh Raj is a Diploma Holder in Mechanical Engineering and had hardly acquired service experience of one year and three months as Assistant Executive Engineer when he has been further promoted and made Incharge Executive Engineer vide Govt Order No. 70-PW(R&B) of 2003 dated 24-6-2003. Copies of the Govt orders have also been placed on record. 3. In the reply filed by the sole respondent, passing of interim order by the Court and also the promotion of Bodh Raj from the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in the year 2001 vide Govt Order No. 547-Works of 2001 dated 27-12-2001 and his further promotion as Incharge Executive Engineer vide Govt Order No. 70- PW(R&B) of 2003 has been admitted. However, the respondent has tendered explanation that said Bodh Raj, a Diploma Holder belongs to Scheduled Caste category and was appointed as Junior Engineer on 9-11-1971. His placement as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) was given effect from 9-11-1981 vide Govt Order No. 623-PW dated 6-11-1995 and he was placed as Incharge Assistant Executive Engineer vide Govt Order No. 547-Works of 2001 dated 27-12-2001. On the representation of Bodh Raj that he was wrongly superseded in the process of promotion at the level of Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, his case was recommended to the Public Service Commission for giving retrospective promotion and the Departmental Promotion Committee/Public Service Commission cleared and approved the promotion of Bodh Raj as Assistant Executive Engineer w.e.f. 1-12-1987 as was conveyed to the Government vide Public Service Commissions communication bearing No. PSC/DPC/20/2002/PWD (Mech) dated 16-4-2003. On the basis of the retrospective promotion of Bodh Raj and on the basis of quota reserved for Diploma Engineers he was found eligible for his placement as Incharge Executive Engineer and accordingly his placement was ordered vide order dated 24-6-2003 as Incharge Executive Engineer. 4. Mr. S.C. Gupta, learned Addl Advocate General appearing for the respondent has strenuously argued that respondent has not committed any contempt of the Court nor the direction of the Court has been violated. Mr. Y.E. Tak, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has maintained that the respondent is liable for contempt as the direction of the Court has been violated. According to him a Diploma Holder is entitled to promotion as Executive Engineer only after acquiring 10 years of experience as Assistant Executive Engineer. Retrospective promotion is only notional in nature and any benefit conferred upon Bodh Raj by way of retrospective promotion cannot be construed as an experience as Assistant Executive Engineer and, therefore, he was not possessed of 10 years of experience as Assistant Executive Engineer and in view of the clear mandate of Recruitment Rules and the interim order passed by the Court, which prohibits the promotions in violation of the Rules and without the requisite experience, the respondent cannot be permitted to go scot-free. 5. Petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case Union of India v. M. Bhaskar & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 416, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have dealt with the question of experience on account of notional promotion. 5. Petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case Union of India v. M. Bhaskar & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 416, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have dealt with the question of experience on account of notional promotion. The relevant portion of the judgment reads:- "15. The aforesaid decision has been challenged in this appeal by the Union of India by contending that 2 years period of experience has to be reckoned, not from 11-10-1988, but from 21-9-1989. There is no dispute that the eligibility condition is two years experience in Grade-II. Now, this respondent having really started working in Grade-II pursuant to the order of 21-9-1989, he could not have gained experience prior to the date he has joined pursuant to this order. The mere fact that his promotion in Grade-II was notionally made effective from 11-10-1988 cannot be taken to mean that he started gaining experience from that day, because to gain experience one has to work. Notional promotions are given to take care of some injustice, inter alia, because some junior has come to be promoted earlier. But we entertain no doubt that the person promoted to higher grade cannot gain experience from the date of the notional promotion, it has to be from the date of the actual promotion. 16. We, therefore, hold that the view taken by the Patna Bench qua this respondent is not sustainable." 6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-said judgment, it cannot be said that Bodh Raj was having requisite experience of 10 years as Assistant Executive Engineer. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that the said Bodh Raj was found entitled to retrospective/notional promotion by the DPC/PSC, he was not possessed of requisite experience of 10 years as Assistant Executive Engineer on the date of the promotion as Incharge Executive Engineer, hence prima facie the promotion of the said Bodh Raj is in violation to the Court direction. From the reply, it is also apparent that the respondent has bonafidely granted promotion to Bodh Raj on the basis of the clearance/approval accorded by the Public Service Commission, the expert body. Therefore, there does not seem to be any intention on the part of the respondent to violate the Court order. However, the fact remains that Court order has been violated. Therefore, there does not seem to be any intention on the part of the respondent to violate the Court order. However, the fact remains that Court order has been violated. I, therefore, allow the respondent further opportunity to rectify the mistake, which appears to be bonafide and with-draw the promotion of Bodh Raj till such time the issue is finally decided in the main writ petition. Let this direction be complied with within a period of four weeks. Rule is discharged.