ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. Heard counsel on both sides.

3. It is true that by the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 169 of 1984 the Court directed that the petitioner should be deemed to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits as admissible under the Rules. It was further stated that if any action is proposed to be taken on him for alleged overstaying on leave, it shall be taken in accordance with the principles of law and of natural justice after making proper inquiry in the matter under the Rules. It is true that this order not having been carried in appeal became final. That, however, does not mean that the respondent when refused promotion can move the contempt application in the same matter and seek the courts order for granting him promotion. The scope of the original writ petition was limited and did not include matters in regard to future promotions. In the contempt application it was not open to the court to enlarge the scope of the original petition and also direct promotion. It is a necessary to impress upon the High Court that contempt being a quasi-criminal matter, care should be taken to see that the scope of the original petition is not