HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASI^JR Writ Petition No. 840 cxf2001 Petitioner RbhitKilnnarTiwari Soa <rf Late Shri Madliav Ftasad Tiwari, ^ed about 24 years, R/o Kirari Via Nanyara, DKStrict Bflaspur. Versus Respondents i. StateofMadhyaPradcshllMDUghthe SecrCtSBy,AgricutttUalDq>artcaeiit, Bhopal (M.P.). 2. StateofChlmf&gailifhTOUghtIw Secretaiy, ^ricultural Departtneat, Raipur (CJtiliattisgpch). 3. Direcfor, ^ricultural, Bhopal(M,P.). 4. Joiat Duccfaw, Agnculture, Raipur Divisk>n, (Chhattisgarh). DB: Honlale ShriJusticcS. R. Nayak, C.J.j & Hon'bte ShriJustkseSatMh.^K.^niholjn, J. ^ Miss Sharaaila Sn^hai, Ad'rocate, for ffac pctitioner. Mr. Ssaij/ay S. Agmwal, Gtwt Advocate for Respotidents. ORAL ORDBR ( 12& Dccembcr 20tS) The foBoiwmg order offhe Courtwas passwl by 8. R. Nayak, C.J. 1. 2. Tlus wrft petition filed under Article 226 (rf tte Coastitution 6f India is directed t^ainst fhe onler dated 29.1.2001 passed by the Madhya Rradesh Admnustratwe Tnbunal, Raipur Bench (&r shoi fhe Tribunal') in MiseeUancous Applieatioa No. 11/2000 anarisBd as AiutexuicP/lO produced at {»^32 of flie anaterisliwpers.; Shouklwe say fhat liiewiit petitiDnjs totettyiais^^ are notaMetograntaiqrrelicftofhepetitiDner? || •i 'nie &cts are sunpte. Tlic faffusr af the pettticmer was Detired on, 20.4.1984 on medical imraMatn^ groiuul. At •fiiat tmte, fh^i / . >: ..'•! • petitionerwasminor^AflerattaaMngiiu^oriity,i& o^ 16.10.1990, applicd fo fhe ttmxl and ifi>urttt i?esptxadents appoiutment on compassionate ground. The petitioner was infonned that fhere was no vacancy fhen existit^ and his case would be considered when fhe vacaa<y arises in due course. Ultunately, no appointment was given to fhe petitioner. That led to the petitioner mstituting Original Application No. 564/1998 before fhe Tribunal. That appUcation was disposed of by the Tribunal on 30th August, 1999 with a direction to the non-applicauts to considcr fhe case of the petitioner for coinpassionate appoiatnent on fhc basis of the circular dated 18,6.1994 issued by the aon- applicaats and if the appKcaut was found eligible aad fit in aU respects to appoint hini to a suitable post having regard to his qiialificattons and experience. The Tribunal directed that fhe above duection should be compUed with within a period of three monfhs. Thc non-applicaats did not compty wifh fhc order within the stipulated time. In the circymstaacc, the petition.er filed conteinpt application being M.A.No. 11/2000 before the Tribunal complainmg about disobcdience of fhe writ issued by fhe Tnbunal in O.A.NO. 564/1998 dated 30tb August, 1999 by the non- applicants. The non-applicants put in appearance in fhe said contempt case and tendered apologies for delay in coiaptymjg with thc writ issued by the Tribiuaal dated 30.8.1999, but, it was specificalty pleaded before the Tribunal that fhe writ was complied with on 30.1.2000 by issuing an endorscment marked aa Aanexure A/9 rejectmg fhe claim of fhe petitioner in wew of fhe withdrawal of fhe circular dated 18.6.1994 by the subsequent circular dated 3.1.1995. In view of this dcvelopment the Tribunal dtemissed fhc MisceBaneous Application No. 11/2000 by its order dated 29.1.2001 which is impugned in this writ petition. fc 2- -/ In fhis writ petition, the pcti.tiDacr has sought for qu^Iung of fh.e order of fhe Tribuaal datcd 29.1.2001. It is quite often said and reiterated fhat a person caanot be punished for aUeged contempt of Court unless it is shown fhat such person wontedly and deliberatefy disobeyed or flouted the writ issued by fhe Court, niterim or final. In the instant case, the non- applicaats/respondents had put in appearance, tendered fhcir apology for delay ia passu^ the order and the Tribunal having convinced and satisfied fhat there was no deliberate or intentional delay in passing the order within tune Umit prescribed by the Court aad ia its discretk>n thought it appropriate to drop fhe proccedn^s and accordingty dismMsed fhe Miscellaaeous AppHcation No. 11/2000. Therefore, as regards the closure of the contempt case, wc carmot take any exception. Although, in this writ petition the oider of the Tribunal made iu M.A.No. 11/2000 is assailed as we heaid tlie learned counsel for the petitioner more and niore, we could see that fhe actual grievance of the petitioner is iu fact directed against the actfon of the respondents in not giviag appointnient rather thaa the impugned order of fhe Tribunal, but, uiifortunately for the petitioner the adverse order passed by tfae respondents on 13.1.2000 is tiot challenged. In the present proceedings, we do not want to express any opinion on the vaUdity or correctness of fhe order made by the respondents/authorities on 13.1.2000 inarked as Annexure A/9 (Annexure R/l in the retum by the respondents in ttds petition). Ifthat orderfaBs forjudicial review, fhe Court inay review the merits of fhe matter. For fhe present purpose, suflBce it to state that siace the order made by the respondents dated 13.1.2000 remains unchallenged, fhere is no 4 ^^ scopc for us to grant reMef of appointment on coinpassionate ground to the petitioncr. By this observation, we are not zinderstood to have steted that the petitfoaer is entifled to the appoiatment on compassionate ground. That question is left open to be agitated in an appropriate proceedmg. Writ petition te dismissed subject to fhe abovc observations. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge lia.iur