- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari-Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) FATHER of applicant, namely, Phool Chand Yadav was working as Secretary since 1988 and later on placed on the post of clerk/cashier in District Co-operative Bank Branch Madhuban in Mau after approval granted by Sewa Mandal from April, 1996 and he died in-harness on 28.9.1997 leaving behind his widow and three sons including two minors. The applicant was High School at the time of death of his father. He moved an application to the Secretary, District Co-operative Bank, Mau on 4.4.1998 for compassionate appointment. The Board vide resolution dated 5.10.2000 resolved that it was mandatory and necessary to have direction from Sewa Mandal before making any appointment. The resolution and the recommendations are as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The claim of the petitioner/ applicant was considered by Sewa Mandal and the Secretary of Sewa Mandal directed respondent No. 1 to make appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 19.1.2001, but despite approval and direction dated 19.1.2001, the petitioner has not been appointed and the entire family of the petitioner is suffering from great financial crisis. After not getting appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16586 of 2002 with the following prayers : (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of death of his father in harness by virtue of Regulation 104 of the Regulations, 1975 in compliance of the order dated 19.1.2001 passed by Sewa Mandal on a suitable post according to his educational qualification forthwith, (b) Issue any other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, (c) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.
(3.) THE aforesaid writ petition was disposed of finally with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 7.7.1998 within a period of two months in accordance with law vide order dated 22.4.2002. The petitioner served the certified copy of order dated 22.4.2002, upon the opposite parties on 27.4.2002, but they are sitting tight over the matter despite service of the order and are wilfully and deliberately flouting the order of this Court and are liable to punish under Contempt of Court Act.;