IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC No. 191 of 2010. Decided on: 1st September, 2011. Manjeet Kumar. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- Ajay Tyagi. …… Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner. : Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent. : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): Petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the judgment dated 20th May, 2010 in C.W.P. No. 1898 of 2010 has not been complied with in proper spirit. The issue pertains to the request/application made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. His father died on 15.08.2003. According to the petitioner, he had taken steps immediately, in view of the indigent circumstances of the family, for compassionate appointment. This Court directed the 1st respondent in the writ petition, Finance Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to take a final decision in the matter within a month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition. The Principal Secretary (Finance) has accordingly passed Annexure P- 3, order, dated 17.06.2010, wherein it is stated that the 2 department would be considering only the cases of widows or the cases of those whose both parents are not alive and in the case of the petitioner, his mother was alive. Still, further it was noted in the order that the petitioner had not applied for compassionate appointment within three years of the death of his father. 2. In the reply, it is candidly admitted that the later submission was not true to the facts. Paragraphs No. 5 and 6 of the reply read as follows: “5. It is however humbly submitted that the compassionate employment case of the petitioner was first received in the Finance Department on 31st Jnanuary, 2005. At that time, the petitioner’s application, was returned to the Rural Development Department, alongwith several other such cases, with the observation that the certificates attached with the applications must be attested by an officer of the rank of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil). The case of the petitioner was again received in the Finance Department in July, 2006 from the Rural Development Department. Due to change of the Government, the petitioner’s case was returned back to the Secretary (Rural Development) on 22nd January, 2008 with the following observation:- “Examined. A.D. to revert back its instant proposal to F.D. during N.F.Y. after seeking the fresh administrative approval of the Secretary-in-Charge as well as Minister-in-Charge.” 6. Thereafter, vide letter dated 27.05.2008, the petitioner’s up to date case containing the application of the petitioner & other relevant papers was sent by the Block Development Officer, Jhandutta which was received in the Rural Development Department on 3 31.05.2008. These papers were received in the Finance Department on 30.10.2008. Hence the inadvertent reference to the dates 31.05.2008 and 30.10.2008 was made in the order dated 17.06.2010 passed by the replying respondent.” 3. Question is whether there is deliberate or willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. In view of the apology tendered in the affidavit, it cannot be said that it is a case of willful disobedience. In that view of the matter, the Contempt Petition is liable to be dismissed, but again the petitioner will have to be relegated for another round of litigation. This is a case where the application duly complete with the requirements having been received in the Finance Department in July 2006, though according to the petitioner, the application was submitted in the Administrative Department much earlier. We will go by the admitted date, i.e., July, 2006. It took about 1 and ½ years for the Finance Department to put the application with Administrative Department in January, 2008 for re-submission, only on account of change in Government. We fail to understand what was the requirement under law for such a re-submission. Be that as it may. In case the application of the petitioner was received in the Finance Department in July, 2006, the same should have been processed in terms of the instructions available on that date. Prevailing policy is also referred in the affidavit as to the indigent circumstances. Therefore, from the application, in case the indigent circumstances of the applicant required consideration of compassionate appointment, the application should be dealt with in terms of the policy available in July 2006. 4 Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, while dismissing the Contempt Petition and discharging the Rule, there will be a direction to the Finance Secretary to withdraw the order Annexure P-3, dated 17.06.2006 and re- examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the policy and instructions as available on record, as on July 2006 and pass fresh orders in the matter, which should be done within a month. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 01, 2011. (bhupender/K. Attri)