08.01.2010 Present: Shri Ashwani Pathak, counsel for the respondent. Respondent present in person. Reply filed which is taken on record. Notice was issued to the respondent to show cause how he has released the amount falling to the share of the lady and the minor children in violation of the provisions of Section 8(7) and (8) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and also orders issued by this Court in FAO No. 392/2009 which have been circulated to all the Commissioners Workmen’s Compensation in Himachal Pradesh. In FAO No. 157 of 2006 and connected matters also this Court noticed that amount(s) were being released to persons with legal disability without passing specific and reasoned orders, as required by law. The respondent in his reply has stated that on 14.7.2009 applicant No.1 Smt. Piplo Devi filed an application praying that the entire amount falling to her share be released to her since she had constructed a house after obtaining loan and she needs the money to repay the loan. The replying respondent got an enquiry conducted through the Revenue Agency and the Patwari Halka submitted his report on 18.7.2009 and reported that the applicant Piplo Devi had constructed two storied slate roof house. It is stated that on the basis of this report, the amount was ordered to be released. The respondent has also stated that as far as the share of the minors are concerned, they have been kept in fixed deposit(s) and the bank has been given instructions not to release the amount(s). The respondent who is present in person has also submitted his unqualified apology for his lapse and assured that he shall be more careful in future. In this case, I find that at least the Commissioner has conducted some enquiry. However, no reason has been given for release of the amount. Conducting of an enquiry itself is not sufficient. The Commissioner before releasing the amount is bound to pass an order as required by Section 8(8) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. This provision lays down that when the Commissioner is satisfied that some amount is required to be released then he can pass an order in this regard. This pre supposes that some reasoned order has to be passed. In this case, I find that an amount of Rs.1,50,132/- was released in favour of Piplo Devi on 18th July, 2009. Possibly it may have taken 2-3 days time for the order to reach the bank. On 24th July, 2009 an amount of Rs.50000/- was withdrawn; on 25th July, 2009 another sum of Rs.80000/- was withdrawn; and on 21st August, 2009 another sum of Rs.15000/- has been withdrawn. This means that only Rs.5000/- is left in the account. This lends strength to my considered opinion that the State was right in protecting the widows and minor children. Therefore, I again reiterate my directions given earlier that all the Commissioners should personally look into the matter and release only that much amount which is necessary to be released. As far as respondent is concerned, I find that he has not committed any contempt. Keeping in view the assurance that he will remain careful in future, notice issued to him is discharged. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. 8th December, 2009 (Deepak Gupta), Judge (VT)