SUGUNA V Vs. S V PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Contemners have not taken any lesson from the order of the Court, dated 6-7-1995, in which it is recorded that learned counsel appearing for them produced an office order, dated 27-6-1995. by the Regional Manager, Vijyawada Region, appointing the petitioner as Attender under Regulation No.17 of the Employees' (Recruitment) Regulations of the Corporation and brought a cheque, dated 4-7-1995,issued by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Vijayawada Region, for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- drawn in favour of the petitioner, to show that there was a genuine compliance of the directions of the Court in Writ Appeal No. 112 of 1995, dated 20-2-1995 and finally they have landed themselves to the present situation in which the Court has no option but to hold that they have shown not only disregard but disobedience to the order of the Court. Direction to give compassionate appointment to the widow of a deceased employee, who died in harness, is allegedly complied with the Office Order, dated 27-6-1995, which reads as follows:

(3.) The above order is nothing but a pretext and a show of compliance, without any semblance of any regard to the direction of the Court inasmuch as the extended appointment was not only purely temporary but with the condition that the same would confer on her no right to claim regularisation of service at a future date. In course of hearing of the contempt petition when the Court noticed that the proposed appointment of the petitioner as Attender at Tiruvuru Depot at a long distance from her home, was not proper, the respondents have purportedly modified the said order by a fresh order, dated 12-10-1995, saying, inter alia, that in modification of the order above, she is posted as Attender in the Depot at Vidyadharapuram in Vijayawada Region. A copy of the order has been produced before us.