Dipesh Shrivastava vs Debasis Mishra

The present contempt petition has been filed by the contemnor on alleged non-compliance of the order dated 3.3.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6455/2015. The said order is on page 10. From the order it appears that the petitioner had filed the said writ petition aggrieved by an order dated 14.1.2015 by which the application for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents on the ground that he was married. The petitioner, relied on the judgment passed in W.P.No.1995/2015 dated 17.7.2015 in which it has been held by this Court that a case for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected only on the ground that the candidate is married if otherwise eligible. It was contended before this Court in W.P.No.6455/2015 that the case was identical to the lis in W.P.No.1995/2015. In the order dated 3.3.2020, this Court held that the authority while rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment by the petitioner did not apply the policy that was existing on the date on which the claim of the petitioner arose. Under the circumstances, this Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions :-

"Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on the basis of policy which was in existence on 14.1.2015 and pass reasonable and speaking order in the case."

It is relevant to mention here that this Court did not direct the authority to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 17.7.2015 passed in W.P.No.1995/2015. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 18.6.2020 was passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner. However, before referring to the impugned order it is essential to state that after the order was passed by this Court on 3.3.2020, the petitioner preferred the representation before the respondents on 6.3.2020 annexing the copy of the order passed by this Court on 3.3.2020. The representation is extremely brief and perfunctory. It only says to consider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment as directed by this Court. It is relevant to state here, that no mention of the order dated 17.7.2015 passed in W.P.No.1995/2015 has been made in the said representation and neither has a prayer being made therein that the case of the petitioner be considered in the light of the said judgment and most importantly neither a copy of the said judgment was annexed along with the representation. Thereafter a reminder was given by the petitioner to the respondents on 9.6.2020 stating therein that more than three months have elapsed after the order of the High Court and if the representation of the petitioner is not decided he would be compelled to resort to contempt proceedings.

Coming back to the impugned order, the same is elaborate and reasons have been given. However, the petitioner seeks to agitate the contempt petition on the ground that his case was not decided in the light of the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.1995/2015, which according to the petitioner squarely covered his case and applying parity the respondents ought to have given compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Having not done so, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have committed contempt of this Courts order dated 3.3.2020.

Like  stated  hereinabove  earlier  the  order  dated 3.3.2020 does not say that the case of the petitioner should be examined in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.1995/2015 and if the petitioner was found identically placed he be given the same relief. All that this Court said in the order dated 3.3.2020 was to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the policy which was in existence as on 14.1.2015. Thereafter, the order dated 18.6.2020 having been passed by the respondents which is elaborate and reasoned cannot be said to be in violation or in contempt of the order dated 3. 3.2020 passed by this Court. If the petitioner is of the view that the said order is illegal or unlawful, the petitioner has the liberty of challenging the impugned order afresh in a writ petition. However, only because the said representation was not decided in a manner favourable to the petitioner languishing under the mistaken premise that the respondents ought to have decided in the light of the order of this Court in W.P.No.1995/2015.

Under the circumstances, the respondents prima facie has not committed any contempt of the order passed by this Court on 3.3.2020 passed in W.P.No.6455/2015 and, therefore, this contempt petition is dismissed. It is further made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.6.2020 passed by the respondents, he shall be at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.

With the above, the petition is dismissed.