- (1.) WHEN the matter is called out, learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had preferred W.P. (S) No. 5922 of 2004 for getting compassionate appointment, because of the death of his father and this Court while allowing the writ petition vide order dated 15th December, 2010 observed that the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the detailed observations, made by this Court from paragraph Nos. 1 to 7 whereas direction was given in paragraph No. 8 of the aforesaid order.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that a detailed affidavit has been filed by the respondents and in paragraph No. 7 of the counter -affidavit, it has been stated that appointment letter has been issued by the respondents in favour of the petitioner, which is dated 9th May, 2011. Thus, the compassionate appointment has already been given to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid submission and looking to the counter -affidavit, especially paragraph No. 7 thereof, it appears that the petitioner has been given compassionate appointment by the respondents vide appointment letter dated 9th May, 2011. Thus, the respondents have complied with the order, passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5922 of 2004 dated 15th December, 2010. Hence, this contempt petition is hereby disposed of.;