Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Contempt is alleged of the judgment and order dated 9.7.2010 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16638 of 2009 (Rajendra Prasad Pandey v. State of U.P. and another).

2. The facts are that the applicant Rajendra Prasad Pandey claims to have been working since 1993 as Assistant Review Officer and was confirmed w.e.f. 30.10.2003 by an order dated 23.9.2010 issued by the Joint Registrar (Establishment) of this Court. He avers that on 17.2.1997 a First Information Report was lodged against him under Sections 498-A, 204-B, 318 Indian Penal Code read with Section 201 Indian Penal Code wherein he was convicted in Sessions Trial No. 354 of 1998 under Sections 302 and 318 Indian Penal Code by the judgment and order dated 20.7.2005 of the Additional District Judge, Allahabad. He alleges to have filed a Criminal Appeal No. 3063 of 2005 before the High Court at Allahabad which was disposed of on 8.9.2005 by setting aside his conviction under Sections 302 and 318 Indian Penal Code and remanding the matter to the trial Court for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 318 and 201 Indian Penal Code. The applicant alleges to have filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. (S) 6359 of 2005 wherein the Apex Court issued notice on 3.1.2006 and stayed the operation of that part of the judgment directing re-trial of the case and such order was confirmed on 3.1.2007 and leave to appeal was granted on 2.11.2007.

3. The applicant alleges to be the senior most Assistant Review Officer and became eligible for promotion to the post of Review Officer in the year 2003-04 but due to pendency of the criminal case his promotion was deferred whereupon he moved a representation on 27.7.2007 before the competent authority after his conviction in the Sessions Trial was stayed. A charge-sheet had been issued and he had been suspended, but the order of suspension was subsequently withdrawn.

4. According to the applicant he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16638 of 2009 against the charge-sheet which petition was allowed on 9.7.2010 and the departmental enquiry No. 14 of 2007 was quashed including the orders dated 10.2.2009, 17.2.2009 and 18.3.2009. The writ Court made the applicant entitled to ‘consequential benefits’ whereupon he was confirmed w.e.f. 3.10.2003 by the order dated 23.9.2010 (already referred to above). The applicant states that the order dated 9.7.2010 passed by the writ Court was served on the opposite party on 6.11.2010 and although the applicant was entitled to consequential benefits like promotion, he was not promoted on the post of Review Officer but was discriminated when on 27.11.2010 as many as 76 Assistant Review Officers, all juniors to the applicant, were granted promotion as Review Officer.

5. Contempt is alleged of that part of the order of the writ Court whereby he was made entitled to all ‘consequential benefits’.

6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party confirmation of the applicant on the post of Assistant Review Officer is admitted but it is stated that such confirmation was subject to the decision in the criminal case pending against him. Insofar as his claim for promotion as Review Officer is concerned, it has been averred by the opposite party that it was considered by the promotion committee which gave a report dated 22.11.2010 wherein it was of the opinion that the promotion of the applicant should be deferred for the reason that an enquiry is pending and that the applicant is facing a criminal trial. The opposite party states that a Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the writ Court and further that the report of the promotion committee was considered and approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice’s order dated 26.11.2010. The opposite party further states that the delay in filing the Special Appeal has since been condoned on 13.5.2011 and the Special Appeal is now posted for admission. It has further been stated in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavi