IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC No. 148 of 2011 Decided on : 4.7.2011 ________________________________________________ Jagat Pal … Petitioner Versus M.P. Sood … Respondent. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate, vice Mr. Lalit K. .Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate. ________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge. The following direction was issued by this court vide judgment dated 08.12.2010, in CWP(T) No. 8681 of 2008:- “In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of employment on compassionate grounds in accordance with law and justice and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as noticed hereinabove in this judgment as also the recommendation made by the Chief Engineer 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 (Arbitration) HPSEB, Block No. 3, SDA Complex Kusampati, Shimla vide letter dated 4.12.2003, Annexure A-5, operative part whereof is extracted below, within three months from today after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired: “It may not be out of place to mention that late Sh.Sohan Lal, Ferro Printer was promoted to Class-III cadre when he had crossed the prescribed superannuation age of 58 years being date of birth 20.5.45. Unfortunately, he expired after 20 days of his joining in the cadre leaving his family in indigent circumstances and he not been promoted, his legal heir would have been entitled for following benefits in addition to family pension: 1. DCRG. 2. Benevolent Fund. 3. Exgratia Grant. 4. Employment Assistance. Therefore, withdrawal of his promotion orders dated 6.9.03 on humanitarian grounds may be condolence to the departed soul and condolation to his aggrieved family in lieu of his long 33 years service rendered by him in the Board, which may also please be considered.” 2. Though, the above direction was issued on 8.12.2010 and was to be complied with within three months from the date of order, i.e by 7.3.2011, yet the matter was in fact considered and decided by the respondent-Board, though against the petitioner who was 3 intimated accordingly, only on 21.3.2011, vide Office Order of even date Annexure RA-3. To this extent implementation of the judgment was delayed by two weeks, for which the respondent has apologized in the reply itself, as also the learned counsel for the respondent has expressed such regrets on behalf of the respondent before this court today and an unqualified apology has been tendered, which in the facts and circumstances of the case is accepted. 3. Against the foregoing background, I am satisfied that though there was some delay in considering and deciding the matter, yet there is no contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are closed and notice discharged. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 4th July, 2011. Lsp*