KAMAL SINGH Vs. S P BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt peti- tipn arises out of the order dated 21.4.1995, passed by this court in the abovenoted writ petition. The short question which arbse for consideration of this court at the time of passing of the aforesaid order was as to whether the fixation of cut off date i.e. 2nd September, 1972 occurring in the definition of term "Deceased Government Servant Dying while in Service Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules") by which the benefit of recruitment to the members of the family of the deceased government servant is limited only to the members of the family of the government servant dying on or after the cut off date as referred to above i.e. 2nd September, 1972. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this contempt petition are. that the late father of the petitioner was appointed on work charge basis by Public Health Engineering Department (for short 'P.H.E.D.'} (Respondent No. 3) but later on he was fixed in his regular pay scale. The petitioner's father died on duty on 14.7.1969 while the petitioner was a minor. The matter was represented through the mother of the petitioner to the concerned authorities so that the petitioner could suitably be given appointment under the Rules of 1976. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had already been given benefits of arrears which he had already received from the department under approval of the Treasury and hence no further benefit could be extended to the petitioner under the Rules. The petitioner was however, taken in service as Class IV servant on the post of Chowkidar and thereafter promoted to the post of Helper, on which post he has been discharging his duties till date.

(2.) In the reply to the show-cause notice which has been filed by the respondents, it has been contended in para 4 of the said reply that no representation was made on behalf of the petitioner by his mother nor any application under the Rules of 1976 seeking appointment of the petitioner, was ever made to the concerned authorities and, therefore, the question of the petitioner being given compassionate appointment under the Rules, does not arise.

(3.) Thereafter the petitioner filed a contempt petition under Section 12 of the Courts Act inter alia on the grounds that since the order dated 12nd April, 1995 passed by this court had not been complied with by the respondents/contemnors directing them as to why they should not be punished for disobedience of the aforesaid orders of this court.