1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 12/2009 IN Writ Petition No. 271/2008 (DECIDED) (Vasant Diwakarrao Dekapurwar VERSUS Indumati R.Parteki & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri D.Duvvuri, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 4, 2009. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for deliberately violating the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.01.2008 in Writ Petition No.271/2008, by which the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur was directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner if it was not decided earlier, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order. It appears that the representation made by the petitioner was decided by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, by an order 2 dated 01.08.2008. It is stated in the order dated 01.08.2008 that the petitioner could not have been appointed on compassionate ground as at the time of the death of his mother, Shri Dekapurwar, the father of the petitioner, was working in New Ideal Girls High school, Umrer. According to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground in view of the Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994. Though there may be some delay in deciding the representation made by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondents have deliberately flouted the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.01.2008. In fact, in the decision dated 01.08.2008, the reason for the delay in deciding the representation is stated. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the Division Bench had directed the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla 3 Parishad, Nagpur to decide the representation and at the relevant time on 01.08.2008, the Deputy Education Officer was holding the additional charge of the post of the Education Officer and, therefore, he was not entitled to decide the representation, cannot be accepted for the purpose of holding that there is willful disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 24.01.2008. Also, the reasons for rejecting the representation of the petitioner cannot be made a ground for initiating an action of contempt against the respondents. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE