Nand Lal Yadav vs Dharmendra Singh and Another

Heard Sri Suresh Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.

This is an appeal filed against the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.2006 whereby cost of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed on the appellant for the delay in complying with the orders passed by this Court in writ jurisdiction.

The brief facts of this case are that on the death of the father of respondent No. 1 Dharmendra Singh, he applied for appointment on compassionate grounds which application was not considered. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a writ petition in which a direction was issued to decide the application of the respondent No. 1. When the same was not decided, the respondent No. 1 filed a contempt petition and it was only thereafter that orders were passed on the application of the respondent No. 1 and he was denied appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed writ petition no. 868 of 2003 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The said writ petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 1.10.2003 and a direction was issued to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur to consider the case of the petitioner of the said writ petition (respondent No. 1 in this appeal) for appointment on compassionate ground and to pay the dues which his father was found entitled. When the same was not done by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the respondent No. 1 filed contempt petition No. 1777 of 2004 in which the impugned order was passed.

Considering the fact that during the pendency of the contempt petition, appointment had been given to the respondent No. 1 on 17.12.2005, the contempt Court did not pass any order of punishment even though there was a delay of more than two years in passing of the order of compassionate appointment and making compliance by the appellant. The contempt Court, however, imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/-on the appellant on the ground of delay in making compliance of the order and compelling the respondent No. 1 to approach this Court time and again.

In our view, the approach of the contempt Court was wholly justified and also in the interest of justice. The contempt Court has taken a lenient view in the matter by not passing any order of punishment and only imposed cost. We do not find any good ground for interference with the impugned order.

This appeal is thus dismissed, however, with the observation that the imposition of cost on the appellant will not adversely affect his service records.