THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C. No.671 of 2008 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed seeking to punish the respondent for alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 21.09.2005 passed in W.P.M.P. No.24098 of 2005 in W.P. No.14107 of 2004 and also order dated 1108.2004 passed in W.P. No.14107 of 2004. The petitioner filed W.P. No.14107 of 2004 seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not providing appointment on compassionate grounds as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Supervisor. This Court by order dated 11.08.2004, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representations made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment to a suitable post, after taking into consideration the guidelines of the second respondent dated 23.08.1995, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed W.P.M.P. No.24098 of 2005 seeking to modify the order dated 11.08.2004 passed in W.P. No.14107 of 2004. This Court on 21.09.2005 passed the following order in W.P.M.P. No.24098 of 2005 in W.P. No.14107 of 2004. “Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. She submitted that this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition observed that the mother of the petitioner made a representation in August 1996 to the first respondent for providing job to the petitioner. She further submits that there was an earlier application made by the mother of the petitioner to the first respondent for the purpose of compassionate appointment in May 1996 but that fact was not referred in the order. Therefore, she requested to modify the order by including the said fact. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed the Xerox copy of a letter said to have written by the mother of the petitioner to the first respondent in May 1996 to provide suitable job to the petitioner. The letter contains only the month as May and the year as 1996 but it does not contain the date. Anyhow, it is for the first respondent to consider if there is any representation made by the petitioner in May 1996 along with the subsequent applications and pass appropriate orders as communicated in the order dated 11.08.2004. The petition is accordingly ordered.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the aforesaid orders have not been complied with by the respondent, he filed the present contempt case. On behalf of the respondent, counter affidavit has been filed stating that in compliance with the orders passed by this Court, letter dated 05.05.2008 was served on the petitioner on 02.07.2008. In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason that there is any contempt on the part of the respondent. Therefore, this contempt case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 28.04.2011 LSK