/•^ IN THB HIGH C&TJBI QF 3'uaregQ'HBE AT Ba,;ASPUB (C.:.5, ,_C5) CbOT'EMPT PETITION Nf->3 SgETITIONER ^.e'm Praka^l son o£ Bg.lju aged ateut 22 years R/o Wariyal Ko titl, Hadhaban Boad ShanshaP Gs3-l, I^yaX'bgpd Bllaspur Sistt.Bi.lasFur (C.S.) M.A' ^Sh-Ei.^Ha'iifY', Cbnaui.ssioner Municipal Gb ipo rataon Bll^.sls.r (C.G£) RSSPONB@?Ti PETITION VaSEa. ARTI CLE 215 OF mE,_3WSTITUTIOH_0 F.IKmA REAB ail'H SECEION 12 O.E- THE OSNTmET OP OEroRT^fliSE' HIGH COTORT^F CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLBSHRrMANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA. J. Contempt Petition No.289 of 2007 PBTmONBR OmPrakash RESPONDBNT Versus Shri M.A. Hanifv PeUUon under Article 215 of the Constitytipn of India r/w Sectlon 12 of the ContemBt of Courts Act Appearance: i Shri R.K. Tiwari, counsel for fhe petitioner. Smt. Hamlda Siddiqiii, counsel for the respondent. ORAL- ORDBR (Passed on 8.3.2011) Heard. 2. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner allegms wiUful disobedience ofthe order dated 23.3.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 1437/06. ^ .,?• V .. 3. Case of fhe petitioner is fhat (he petitioner had ffled writ petition for direGtion to give him compassionate appointment and that writ petition was finally disposed of by the Court vide its order dated 23.3.2006, granting liberty to make representation before the concemed aufhorities. The Court directed the competent authority to decide fhe same on its own merits and in aecordance wifh law, as early as possible, maldng it clear that if grievances iu''-TC:"®5 uasa -2- •^. "^ms u- '. -.../ stiU remain, the petitioner may avaU remedy available under fhe law. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter fhe petitioner submitted various letters and on 21.4.2006, fhe Coinmissioner, Municlpal Corporation, reqiiired him to submit documents, certificate, to which, it was replied on 9.5.2006 statingthat the necessary docinnents, records have already been submitted in the ofiice. Thereafter, representation was made on 25.5.2007, 24.7.2007 and 29.9.2007, but no decision on merits was taken and on the contrary, fhe Coiamissioner, vide its meino dated 16th January, 2007 (Aruiexure P-9),sougbt instructions from fhe State Govt. It is further submitted fhat fhereafter, fhe matter remained pending and the petitioner was informed vide memo dated 21.1.2008 (Annexure P-10) that fhe matter relating to claim of the compassionate appointment shall be considered affcer receipt of instructions from the State Govt. He further submits that thoi^h the Coxmnissioner on 29.1.2008 sought instructions froiu fhe State Govt., two days thereafter vide his order dated 30th Januaiy, 2008 (Annexure P-12), representation wasrejected, stating that the petitioner is not entitled as he was 1 > not the dependent and there are-.no instructlons from the Govt.to provide compassionate appointment to more than one member of a family and in case State GoYt. so orders, fhe case of fhe petitioner would be re-considered. In fhe subm.ission of leamed counsel for the petltioner, fhe inanner in which the application -3- t^ 'Y* .- /' has been kept pending and order passed on 30th January, 2008, it amounts to flouting the order of fhe Court and amounts to contempt. 5. On the other hand, leamed counsel for fhe respondent subinits that in respectful compliance of the order of fhe Court, fhe Commissioner had proceeded to decide the matter and various dociunents were sought froia the petitioner. The respondent, afber examining fhe case, foiind that fhe matter reqi.ured tnstructions to be sought from fhe State Govt as it was a peculiar ease where a member of petitioner's family was earlier granted compassionate appointment and, therefore, it had becoine necessary to seek instructions as to whether the benefit of compassionate appointaient coiild again be extended to another member of a family. Leamed counsel fiirther submits that though, several letters were written to the higher authorities, seeking gmdelines and instruetions, when no tastrucdons were received, on fhe basis of existing material and policy, fhe petitioner's representation for grant of compassionate appointment was considered aad rejected vide order dated 30th Jantffiiy, 2008. s Leamed counsel for the respondent submitted that fhe respondent fherefore complied with fhe order of the Court. 6. Considerir^; fhe submissions made by leamed counsel for the parties and after perusing the pleadings and documents which have been placed on reeords, I am not able to hold fhat respondent in any manner acted in wUtful disobedience of the ^•''"'w?<!i^ '(.<'.. ";...^e^^ •^•^^ss i,,. /:/ '•YiL^reEfc^ t.; 'Ptseveen. -4- order of fhe Court or Uouted the same. Vide order dated 23.3.2006, the petition was fmally disposed of with a direction that the competent aufhority shall decide the matter on its own merits and ia accordance wifh law as early as possible. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, vlde its letter dated 21.4.2006 requlred fhe petitioner to submlt necessary information for decision. Vide memo dated 16.1.2007, fhe respondent sought guidelines and instructions from the Sta.tc Govt. Thereafter, another letter was sent to the Gtovt. on 29th January, 2008 (Annexure R-4). When no instructions were received, the respondent decided the matter vide his order dated 30th Januaiy, 2008, wherein, fhe application has been rejected firsfly on the groimid that the petitioner was not dependent of his mother and secondly that there are no instructions of the Govt. to allow compassionate appointment to more than one member of the famUy. The order furtfaer reads that tn case the State Govt. so orders, the case of fhe petitioner would be again considered. In the opmion of this Court, fhe respondent has complied with fhe order offhe Court and it cannot be sald that fhere is any violation or disobedience of the order passed by this Court, much less willful disobedience. 7. The rule is accordingly discharged and the petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge