AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Merathia, J.—The petitioner has filed this contempt petition for non-compliance of the order dated 13.2.2004 passed in W.P. (S) No. 824 of 2004 on the ground that the respondents have not re-considered the application of the petitioner and did not take any decision, in accordance with law. It is also submitted that a show cause has been filed by the Senior Law Officer and not by the opposite parties.
Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that without going into the merit of the claim of the petitioner with regard to compassionate appointment, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order, rejecting his claim on the basis of limitation was quashed.
He further submitted that the widow of the deceased-employee Mala Ram Mahto is alive and as per the scheme, as she is beyond 45 years of age, the Management decided to offer her the monetary compensation, which is overhand above the cleath-cum-retiral benefits, payable to the dependent till she attains her age of 60 years.
In my opinion, the order has been substantially complied with, by taking a decision to offer monetary compensation to the widow of the deceased instead of considering the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
The petitioner may challenge the said letter dated 16/17.6.2004 (Annexure-B) before appropriate Forum.
With these observations, this con tempt application stands dropped.