IN THE HIGHE COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 222 of 2008 Smt. Hemlata Pant … Petitioner Vs Major General Tavinder Pal & others … Respondents Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gopal Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Anjali Bhargawa, learned counsel for the respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) By way of this contempt petition under the Contempt of Court Act, the petitioner has prayed for summoning and punishing the respondents for violation of the order dated 28.04.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1369 of 2002 (S/B), Smt. Hemlata Pant Vs Union of India & others. 2. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment and order reads, as under:- “Therefore, the impugned orders 1.7.2002 and 23.7.2002 are hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the compassionate ground under the 5 per cent quota to be filled up under the Dying in Harness Rules within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.” 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the newly impleaded respondent No. 2 – Major General P.K. Bachhar, Chairman of the Board, Survey of India, Dehradun and it has been stated in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6, which reads as under:- 2 “5. That the contents of paragraph No. 8, 9 & 10 of the contempt petition require no comments being matter of record. However, it is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 28-04-2008 had directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner i.e. Smt. Hemlata Pant on compassionate grounds under the 5% quota. As such in compliance of the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 28.04.2008 the case of the petitioner i.e. Smt. Hemlata Pant was reconsidered. It is also relevant to state here that the petitioner moved an application to the Surveyor General of India for considering the case of her daughter Chetna Pant for compassionate appointment in her place, whereas Hon’ble Court had directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner. 6. That the contents of paragraph No. 11 of the contempt petition are not admitted as stated and vehemently denied. In reply it is stated here that the case of the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 28.04.2008 was reconsidered by a Committee of Officers on 11.09.2008 alongwith 89 cases received by the Chairman of the Committee for consideration against 12 vacancies of Group D. After examining the cases on the basis of guidelines of DOPT regarding the scheme of compassionate appointment 1998 and various instructions and office memorandums issued from time to time the committee prepared a merit list and accordingly 12 cases being most deserving were recommended for appointment. In the merit list prepared, the name of petitioner i.e. Smt. Hemlata Pant appeared at serial No. 22 and therefore could not be recommended for appointment on compassionate grounds within the available 12 vacancies. A copy of the recommendation of the committee for 3 compassionate appointment is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-1 to this affidavit. However, the committee recommended that her case for compassionate appointment should be considered next time also. As per DOPT guidelines deserving compassionate appointment cases are considered for 3 years for available vacancies under 5% quota. If appointment can not be offered within 3 years his/her name is dropped from the waiting list.” 4. On the basis of the aforesaid, it is quite clear that in compliance of the order dated 24.04.2008 passed by this Court, the matter pertaining to the petitioner was reconsidered by the committee of the Officers on 11.09.2008 along with 89 other 89 other cases received by the Chairman of the Committee for consideration against 12 vacancies of Group D and after examining the cases on the basis of the guidelines of DOPT regarding the scheme of compassionate appointment 1998 and the various instructions as well as office memorandums issued from time to time, the committee prepared a merit list and accordingly 12 cases being most deserving were recommended for appointment. As the need of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 22, therefore, she should not be recommended for appointment on compassionate ground within the available vacancies of 12%. The copy of the recommendation of the committee for compassionate appointment has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit. 5. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in the list itself which was prepared by the committee, it has been indicated that the name of the petitioner shall be reconsidered later on. He has 4 submitted that the case of the petitioner has never been reconsidered thereafter. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the same time could not point out anything which may indicate that after the appointment of 12 persons mentioned in the list, whether any further appointment has been made by the Department under the Dying in Harness Rule or not. In case, no appointment has been made by the Department as yet, apart of the 12 candidates taken in the list as given in Annexure CA-1 then, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no avail. However, in case, the petitioners has any grudge that his case has not been reconsidered by the Department and in case, he is in a position to show that whether any vacancy now exists and the Department has not taken any steps for considering the case of the petitioner, he may adopt the proper remedy available in law for the same. 7. For the reasons stated above, it is quite clear that the order passed by this Court has been complied with. I therefore, do not find any justification to continue the contempt proceedings against the respondents under the Contempt of Court Act furthermore. 8. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. The notices issued against the respondents are hereby discharged. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 27.07.2009 ASWAL