IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 21.09.2010 COCP No.1849 of 2010 (O&M) Sadhu Ram and another ...Petitioners Versus Shri A.K.Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Shri R.S.Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Sadhu Ram-petitioner No.1 herein was working as Driver with Haryana Roadways. He was invalidated out of service vide order dated 03.06.1994. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court claiming that he is not medically unfit to be invalidated out of service. In the alternative, petitioner No.1 claims that his son namely Gurdial, who was impleaded as petitioner No.2 in the writ petition, be appointed on account of his unfitness in the service. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 12.03.2003, wherein a Medical Board was ordered to be constituted to reexamine petitioner No.1 and with direction to the General Manager to take appropriate decision with regard to the claim of the petitioners. It was also ordered that if petitioner No.1 is found to be invalid, then petitioner No.2 be offered a job in terms of policy dated 23.11.1992. In pursuance of such direction, an order has been passed on 13.07.2005 (Annexure P-5), wherein petitioner No.1 was informed that job cannot be provided to the wards of a driver, who has become unfit during COCP No.1849 of 2010 (O&M) service as ex-gratia scheme has been abolished in terms of policy dated 31.03.2003. It was communicated that as per rules, job cannot be provided to the son of petitioner No.1. Subsequently, the Transport Commissioner, Haryana communicated to the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Transport Department, on 01.08.2007 that the claim of the petitioner has been considered in terms of the order of this Court by passing a speaking order. Petitioner No.1 has been informed subsequently on 07.03.2008 as well that policy to provide job to the wards of persons, who have become unfit during service has been withdrawn by the Government and that all other pensionary benefits have been given to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioners is that the order passed by this Court on 12.03.2003 has not been given effect to in its letter and spirit. The respondents were bound to appoint the son of petitioner No.1 in terms of policy dated 23.11.1992. Firstly, the petitioners have invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court after more than 7 years of the order being passed and after 5 years of the date when the claim of petitioner No.1 for appointment of his son in lieu of his unfitness from service was declined. The contention of the petitioners is that since this Court has directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in terms of the policy dated 23.11.1992, whereas the claim of the petitioners has been rejected in terms of later policy dated 21.03.2003, therefore, the respondents have not given effect to the orders passed by this Court. Whether the policy, which is in force on the date of passing of the order of this Court or on the date of consideration of the claim of the petitioner is required to be applied, is not free from doubt and in fact, the said issue is pending consideration before the Larger Bench. 2 COCP No.1849 of 2010 (O&M) In view of the above, I do not find that any case for initiation of contempt proceedings is made out. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 21.09.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3