w -^ v ®"8'»Beocii IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cj^^ C^^' CONTEMPT PETITION N0. l^ OF 2011 X- PETITIONEgj\ :-^/Smt. Krishna Yadav, aged about 47 years, wd/o Late Shri K.L. Yadav, R/o Near Chandra Morli Mandir, Bandhavapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS :- B.B. Rairaikar, General Manager, Zonal office, Gangotri complex, 1st Floor, T.T. Nagar, Bhadbhada, Rpad, Bhopal (M.P.)(y^^Y^ &^'^ o^- T-nA'^) ^\ ^ Conteinnor CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950, READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF THE COURT ACT. The petitioner named above respectfully submits as under:- I-HC-22 -s^ ^ii^iid^. ^^^Ji^. rc«yii^i< WH^T9hHlch SIT^T 'q?ra? ^..^.:.z...^-^/" •^re^r' ^TT^T^T f<rticb 371^?T 5h^icn «(^a 3TT^T'^TTW^rf^TT SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J 09-05-2011 Shri Rahul Birthare, counsel for Leamed counsel for the petition|er order was passed on 4/12/09, directingl the the petitioner, in accordance with lav^ available at the time of making of appl|i appropriate ordere as expeditiously as| eight weeks from the date of receipt decided the representation belatedlyl rejected the claim of the petitioner forj; without due consideration of the casfe retevant and available at the time of m^cing Leamed counsel for the petiti<|>ner rejecting petttloner's appiication in termN disobeyed the directives of the Courtj required to be considered on the basisj appointment. He submits that even thc|ugh the representetion within a period of copy of the order, the same was deci^ied beyond the period ppescribed byttie Co|urt. The order of the Court was said to have been sent (Annexure C/?) representation itsetf is dated 8/12/09 authority on 9/2/10. On that count, l r^pondent. pas^ed cM^(<n<i1i 'RTR^rf"? 'fecst <F5t^i< '^3^m3?n^?T fhe petitioner. submjts that in W.P. No 424/05, an ittie authorities to examine the case of and as per the poiicy relevant and |cation form by the petifioner and pass 1 possible preferably within a period of |of copy of the order, the respondent vide its order dated 9/2/2010 and grant of compassionate appojntment of the petitioner as per the poticy of appiication form. submitted that the authority by i^of circular dated 19/2/97 has wttlfuJiy that the case of ttiie petitioner w®s of prevalent policy of compasslonate the Court had diredsed to ciecide weeks from tiw date of receipt of vide order ciated 9/2/10, wbich is ahd on 4/12/09. The representatSon is !p) aiong with acknQwledgment. The the order has been passed by th@ ^m not inclined to (ssue notice to the [Tit^ '^f^ 'I-HC-22 ^TI^T^T f<'<i<=h ^n^T $^^i<=h ^if^a /- Dwptj 's^ ^l^ld^, ^Til^^<o. fa<ni<iy ^l^cil 9b^l<=h STT^T 'q^ra? G^^^^. 1^1 f] 200 'IN^ST' ^P?T'^<nw^1tn -p' 1 have gone through the order the General Manager (Pereonnei). 11 CM<<(<n<i1i 'RT^ff"? 'fe^t <rsi<^i< ^^rf^R^TT^T [lated 9/2/10, which hasbeen passed by Is a detailed order. The authority has taken into consideration the fact thajt this Court had issued a diredSon for decision of the representation and <he order says that ttie same is being passed in compliance of the direc1|ions of this Court. The auflhority has recorded in ite order that the policy vJFhich was prevatent at the relevant time was dated 19/2/97. The authority hs|s ateo taken into conslderation, e law laid down by the Supreme Court in consideration various facts, details certain decisions and after taking^ into >f the deceased employee and cfeiim, came to a conclusion that the p@ti1|oner is not entitled to compasslonate appointment. Theauthority has|also recorded that a sympathetic consideration has been made and tijie bank js inclined to oflFer ex-gratia as per the provisions of the prevalent scl|ieme of circular dated 8/9/07. !n the opinion of thjs Court, |he actlon of the respondent does not appear to be contemptuous nor c disobedience. Whether the view tak^n by the authority is eorrect or not, is a matter, which can b©agitated by ttie| as may be availabte to her under the| not inclined to issue notice to the resri WSth the liberiy as aforesaid, t*1 ^in It be said to be an act of wiHful petitioner by taktng recourse to remedy law. In view of the fact as above, 1 am •ondent. lis petition isdismissed. - ^ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [Tft^ ^f^