ORDER Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. The question is what is meant by disposal of a representation by a reasoned order and in what circumstances, such a disposal will give rise to contempt of Court? 2. The question arose out of the fact that in W.P. (S) No. 2035/02, a direction was given to the opposite parties by order dated 4.2.2003 (out of which this contempt application arises) that they should dispose of the representation by a reasoned order. The petitioner accordingly filed a representation, which was disposed of having been decided against him. According to the petitioner, this rejection is not based on proper reasonings and consequently, it has been passed only to circumvent the order of the Court and to get rid of any contempt proceeding. 3. In many a cases, such orders for disposing a representation by a speaking/reasoned order is given by the Courts. What is meant by speaking/reasoned order requires some deliberation. (1) When a representation is rejected on some grounds which were pleaded by the opposite parties, when the writ petition was heard and not agreeing with those reasons, the Courts give further direction for passing a reasoned order, then disposing the representation on the same reasons/grounds adding some unsubstantial reasons here and there does not amount to passing a reasoned order as per the direction of the Courts, simply because the same reasonings have been repeated by the opposite parties which have already not been appreciated by the Court, while disposing the writs. In such a situation, the disposal of the representation will tantamount to non-disposal of the representation as the order passed by the opposite parties is aimed to circumvent the contempt proceeding. (2) The second case may be that when new reasonings are given but apparently they are fallacious and not sustainable, then also disposal of such a representation in such a manner will give rise to the aforesaid consequences. (3) The third case may be that the reasonings given are substantial and cannot be dispelled prima facie, then in such a circumstances, the order is reasonable and acceptable and does not invite any contempt proceeding. 4. Now I wish to examine what has happened in the present case. (3) The third case may be that the reasonings given are substantial and cannot be dispelled prima facie, then in such a circumstances, the order is reasonable and acceptable and does not invite any contempt proceeding. 4. Now I wish to examine what has happened in the present case. The petitioner joined initially in the year 1966 and subsequently was appointed against the post of Assistant Store Keeper in the year 1975 in P.T.P.S. This P.T.P.S. was under the Bihar State Electricity Board. Under the rules of the Electricity Board, the employees were to get two time bound promotions at certain intervals of 10 years and 18 years. The petitioner claims that he became entitled to second time bound promotion in the year 1993, which was not given to him. Consequently, he filed W.P. (S) No. 2035/02. Earlier he had also moved this Court, which need not be discussed here. Obviously, by the time he filed the writ application, the State of Jharkhand had come into being. Thereafter, Jharkhand State Electricity Board had been created and the petitioner came under the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. Relying on certain decisions, this Court felt that after creation of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, the Bihar State Electricity Board had no jurisdiction to give punishment; consequently, the petitioner, who has been given promotion under the order of the Bihar State Electricity Board, could not have been promoted by the Bihar State Electricity Board; therefore, it was left to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board to dispose of the representation of the petitioner afresh by a reasoned order. 5. One relevant fact is that there had been a departmental proceeding against the petitioner as he had retained D.V.C. quarters for a considerable period of nine years even after his transfer from the period 1982 to 1993. This departmental proceeding was disposed of in the year 2001. Thus, the departmental proceeding related to the years 1981 to 1993. It is relevant to note that the petitioner claims his second time bound promotion with effect from some date of the 1993, but it is important to note that in respect of that period, there was a departmental proceeding drawn later on. Under the Departmental Rules as envisaged in Annexure-1, according to the opposite parties, an employee who is cen-sored, he loses his right of being promoted for 3 years. Under the Departmental Rules as envisaged in Annexure-1, according to the opposite parties, an employee who is cen-sored, he loses his right of being promoted for 3 years. Earlier this time bound promotion with effect from that date, 1993, was given to the petitioner under the orders of the Joint Secretary of the Bihar State Electricity Board, but as stated, the competency of the Bihar State Electricity Board was wanting to do that. Therefore, that order was set aside and the opposite parties were directed to dispose of the representation. 6. The grounds taken by the present opposite parties in disposing of the representation are that in view of the Standing Order of the Bihar State Electricity Board, which is still applicable to the employees of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, the petitioner could not have been promoted for the next three years starting from 1993; consequently, as the punishment of censor had been recorded in his A.C.R. in the relevant year 1993 -94, the petitioner did become entitled to second time bound promotion only after three years i.e. in the year 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the Joint Secretary. Bihar State Electricity Board, passed the order of giving him promotion which was executed by the P.T.P.S. then in that circumstances, it cannot be said that this circular upon which the opposite parties have relied upon in disposing of the representation of the petitioner did not exist. Thus, he wants to impress that as the circular was already existing, yet he was given the promotion, so again relying on the same circular, the passing of the order by the opposite parties in the manner as has been done in this case was illegal and in violation of the Courts order. On careful perusal of Annexure-6 (order of the Joint Secretary), I find that the Joint Secretary or the P.T.P.S. when passed the order did not consider the effect of the Standing Order. In what circumstances, that order ignoring the Standing Order was passed has not been given in those orders. Therefore, when the opposite parties have passed the order relying that circular, then it cannot be said that this order is on perverse reasonings; consequently, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got to fail. 7. In what circumstances, that order ignoring the Standing Order was passed has not been given in those orders. Therefore, when the opposite parties have passed the order relying that circular, then it cannot be said that this order is on perverse reasonings; consequently, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got to fail. 7. It is relevant to state here that they were two prayers in the writ, out of which this contempt application arises, the first -the recovery of the salary drawn be not made from him against the promotion given even in absence of non- passing of the Drafting and Noting Examination. The opposite parties have accepted that the recovery is not to be made. Thus, the petitioner got the first relief. The second relief sought was to give the second time bound promotion from the year 1993, which was denied for the reasons aforesaid. 8. In the circumstances, the only question may be whether this Standing Order which was passed by the Bihar State Electricity Board could have been adopted by the opposite parties and used against the petitioner. Though prima facie I find no illegality in this in view of the provisions in the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, but as this question is a question of law arid if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the application of the Standing Order of the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity. Board against him, his remedy is to file a fresh writ application for a declaration in that regard. Otherwise the order that has been passed by the opposite parties falls in the category of the reasoned order, which does not invite contempt. In the aforesaid circumstances, this contempt application is dismissed as the order of the Court has been complied with.