Order I.A. No. 1122 of 2008: 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 W.P.(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, in spite 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 vs. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association and Another [(2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 6831. 3. 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 W.P.(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. 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. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties referred to the pleadings and the documents annexed. 5. The question is, whether passing the order of punishment dated 18.3.2008 and not finding the petitioner fit for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer by J.P.S.C., amounts to violating the orders passed by this Court? In my opinion, the answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 6. Petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2191 of 2'006 complaining that his juniors had been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was clearly stated that the petitioner had suffered two punishments; one departmental proceeding and another departmental enquiry were continuing against him. After recording the said stand of the respondents, the said writ petition was disposed on 13.9.2006. The operative portion reads as follows:- "Whatever may be the position, the petitioner has a right of consideration for promotion. He has already been made In-charge Superintending Engineer. Even if disciplinary proceedings are pending, he cannot be denied the right of consideration and the respondents are at liberty to adopt the sealed cover procedure after according consideration in accordance with the rules. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on regular/substantive basis alongwith the other eligible candidates, in accordance with Jules, within period of three months. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on regular/substantive basis alongwith the other eligible candidates, in accordance with Jules, within period of three months. His further consideration for the post of Chief Engineer will depend only after he is able to secure the promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on substantive basis that too if permissible under rules and vacancy is available." 7. Alleging non-compliance of the said order, the instant contempt case was filed, in which, when the Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand was directed to be present personally on 15.1.2008, a notification was issued on 10.1.2008 promoting the petitioner with effect from 1.7.1998 (with financial benefit from 21.11.2006) subject to the final order which may be passed by this Court and subject to the final result of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. On 15.1.2008, when the said order dated 10.1.2008 was produced, this Court observed that so far as the first direction to consider the petitioner's promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, has been complied. In regard to the second direction of this Court for further consideration of his case for the post of Chief Engineer, if permissible under the rules and the availability of vacancy; four months time was sought by the learned Advocate General for taking final decision. It was also submitted by the learned Advocate General that two departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in which the allegations against him were proved and the petitioner was asked to submit his second show cause, but he was not cooperating. When the petitioner denied to have received any second show cause notice, the learned Advocate General was directed to ensure that the second show cause notice is served on the petitioner so that he files his reply. The opposite parties were directed to complete the process for consideration of the case of the petitioner for the post of Chief Engineer within three months. With these observations, this contempt application was disposed of with the warning to respect the orders of the Court in future. It was lastly observed that if this order is not complied, it would be open to the petitioner to bring the same .to the notice of this Court. With these observations, this contempt application was disposed of with the warning to respect the orders of the Court in future. It was lastly observed that if this order is not complied, it would be open to the petitioner to bring the same .to the notice of this Court. On the basis of this observation, this interlocutory application has been filed. 8. As per the order dated 18.3.2008, after considering his second show cause, the petitioner was punished with compulsory retirement on the grounds that he was found guilty in both the departmental proceedings; and in view of his past punishments and conduct, such punishment was justified. There was no order under which the Department was restrained from continuing with the said departmental proceedings and passing order of punishment. It was noticed in the order passed by this Court in the writ petition that the departmental proceedings were continuing. As noticed above, during this contempt case also, petitioner was directed to file his Second show cause. This Court cannot go into the merits of the order of punishment in this contempt case, and it is not possible to hold that the opposite parties have passed the order of punishment in order to circumvent any order of this Court. This Court directed to consider his case for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and then to the post of the Chief Engineer, as per the rules and the vacancy available, but J.P.S.C. did not find the case of the petitioner fit for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer in its meeting dated 11.4.2008, on the ground that he has been punished by order dated 18.3.2008. J.P.S.C. is an independent body. Thus the petitioner's case was considered and, therefore, it cannot be held that the opposite parties-officers of the department have violated any order of this Court, if J.P.S.C. did not find petitioner's case fit for promotion. The observations relied on behalf of the petitioner from the case of E.T. Sunup (supra) are of no help to the petitioner, as they were made after holding that there was disobedience of the order. 9. In the result this interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1122 of 2008) is rejected. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to move before appropriate forum against the order of punishment dated 18.3.2008, and in that event, observations made in this order, if any, will not prejudice him. 9. In the result this interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1122 of 2008) is rejected. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to move before appropriate forum against the order of punishment dated 18.3.2008, and in that event, observations made in this order, if any, will not prejudice him. However, no costs.