Sabiya Salam & Anr vs Sanjeev Verma & Anr

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J

By this Contempt Petition, the Petitioners allege violation of Judgment dated 21st of May, 2019 passed in LPA No.124/2019 read with Judgment dated 22nd of November, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No.1756/2016.

The case of the Petitioners is that they filed a Writ Petition against the rejection of their claim made by the Respondents seeking compassionate appointment in favour of Petitioner No.1 on the death in harness of the deceased, namely, Abdul Salam Bhat, father of Petitioner No.1; and husband of Petitioner No.2, who was working as a Driver in the Respondent Department. The said Writ Petition, vide Judgment dated 22nd of November, 2017, came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner No.1 for appointment on compassionate basis. This Judgment of the learned Single Judge was, thereafter, assailed by the Respondents in appeal bearing LPA No.124/2019 which came to be dismissed vide Judgment dated 21st of May, 2019, thereby upholding the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the Petitioners have filed the instant Contempt Petition alleging violation of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd of November, 2017 as well as the Judgment dated 21st of May, 2019 passed in LPA No.124/2019.

On notice having been issued, the Respondents have filed the Statement of Facts, wherein they have enclosed the copy of Government Order bearing No.236-FST of 2019 dated 1st of August, 2019 issued by the Commissioner/ Secretary to Government, Forest, Ecology & Environment Department, in terms whereof the claim of the Petitioners appears to have been examined in the light of the aforesaid two Judgments and, accordingly, rejected being devoid of merit.

In the light of the above position obtaining in the matter, we are of the view that there is, now, hardly any scope left for this Court to intervene in the matter inasmuch the Respondents have considered the claim of the Petitioners and rejected the same in terms of the Government Order dated 1st of August, 2019. The mandate of the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, as upheld by the Division Bench in appeal, was to accord consideration to the claim of the Petitioner No.1 for her compassionate appointment which the Respondents have considered, wherein same has been found devoid of any merit. It is quite clear that the learned Single Judge had left the matter for consideration of the claim of the Petitioner No.1 for compassionate appointment completely at the discretion of the Respondents. In these circumstances and given the fact that in the instant Contempt proceedings we are only supposed to ensure implementation of the Judgment passed by the Court, we cannot go into the veracity/ legality of the consideration Order issued by the Respondents rejecting the claim of the Petitioners. It is settled legal position that in a Contempt proceeding, the Court has to only ensure implementation of the direction(s) of which disobedience/ violation is alleged and, in the instant case, by issuing the consideration Order dated 1st of August, 2019, the Respondents have complied with the direction passed by the Court which was only to accord consideration to the claim of the Petitioner No.1 for compassionate appointment.

While making submissions to impress upon the Court that the consideration Order issued by the Respondents is neither in accordance with law nor in tune with the mandate of the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, as upheld by the Division Bench in appeal, Mr S. R. Hussain, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has referred to certain Judgments, however, this contention, if gone into, would amount to touching upon the merits of the case which, in a Contempt proceeding, is unwarranted. It is, at the cost of repetition, reiterated here that all that a Court has to see in a

Contempt Petition is whether the direction(s), subject matter of the said proceeding, is/ are complied with or not. In the present case, the Respondents were directed to consider the claim of the Petitioner No.1 for her compassionate appointment which they have done by issuing the consideration Order dated 1st of August, 2019.

Mr Hussain also contended before us that the learned Single Judge has made a declaration to the effect that the Petitioner No.1, a married daughter, is also entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds by including the 'daughter' in the word 'family'. Perusal of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, as upheld by the Division Bench, however, brings it to the fore that while the learned Single Judge has made a discussion with regard to the scheme of the rules qua the benefit of compassionate appointment available to the family member of the deceased employee who dies in harness, but, at the same time, the learned Single Judge has not declared the married daughter dependent on the deceased which could have formed the basis for the Petitioner No.1 to claim the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, this contention of the learned Counsel is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable.

In the above background, we are satisfied with the Compliance reported by the Respondents qua implementation of the Judgment dated 22nd of November, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, as upheld by the Division in appeal vide Judgment dated 21st of May, 2019, and, therefore, we see no reason to proceed any further in the instant Contempt Petition.

Accordingly, this Contempt Petition shall stand closed as settled. The Petitioners, however, shall be at liberty to work out their remedy as may be available to them qua the aforesaid Order dated 1st of August, 2019 issued by the Respondents.

Contempt Petition disposed of as above.