IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC(T) No. 103 of 2008 Decided on: May 20, 2011. Chander Shekhar ….Petitioner Versus S.C. Negi & others. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr.Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.A.G. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner approached this Court complaining of the contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents in not implementing the order passed by the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal on 2.6.2006 in Original Application No.536 of 2002. The matter pertains to the appointment on compassionate ground. The death took place on 2nd August, 2000. The application for compassionate appointment was rejected on 27.7.2002. That was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of rejection and directed the respondents to consider the matter afresh in light of the Policy and in accordance with law and also in light of the judgment. Since no action was taken, the petitioner filed the application for contempt. 2. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, it is seen that the matter was considered with the required seriousness and he was offered the appointment on daily-wage basis as per the Policy now prevailing, on 1.1.2011. Though in contempt proceedings, we may not go into the merits of the contentions, in view of the request made by the petitioner for seniority, we are of the view that unless that aspect is referred to in these 2 proceedings, the petitioner will have to be relegated for another round of litigation, which will certainly not meet the ends of justice. 3. In that view of the matter, we may refer to the request made by the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended for regular appointment in terms of the policy prevailing in the year 2000, when the cause of action arose, we are afraid that the contention cannot be appreciated. No doubt, the policy under which the petitioner is offered appointment is not the one prevailing in 2000 nor 2002 or for that matter in 2006. Be that as it may. In view of the chequered history of the case, the petitioner, in the interest of justice, should at least be given the notional seniority with effect from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal, namely, 2.6.2006. 4. Therefore, while dismissing the contempt petition and discharging the notice, we make it clear that the order dated 1.1.2011 of the Superintending Engineer, JNR Circle, HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, offering appointment to the petitioner on daily-wage basis, on compassionate grounds, will have the effect of seniority w.e.f. 2.6.2006, for the purpose of considering his claim for regularization. 5. With the above direction, the contempt petition is disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. May 20, 2011. ( Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak/mlg) Judge.