Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.N. Patel - (1.) COUNSEL for the applicant submitted that the order passed by this Court dated 2nd July, 2008 in W.P.S. No. 6335 of 1997 has not yet been complied with. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the direction given by this Court vide the aforesaid order was to the effect that the case of the petitioner to be considered for compassionate appointment as well as for death -cum -retiral benefits admissible to her under the law and now detailed orders have been passed which are at Annexure A and Annexure B to the counter affidavit and the petitioner is already given compassionate appointment and is already paid Rs.50000/in pursuance of the Government decision of Home Department's Circular No. 868 dated 01.09.1999. These orders have not been challenged by the petitioner though they are dated 3rd April, 2010. Thus, the order passed by this Court dated 02.07.2008 in W.P.S. No. 6335 of 1997 has been complied with. The director given by this Court dated 2nd July, 2008 reads as under: Consequently, this writ application is allowed and respondent No. 2, Director General of Police, Home Guards, Government of Jharkhand, is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground as well as for payment of compensation and death cum retiral benefits admissible to her under the law by taking a decision in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In view of the aforesaid direction given by this Court to decide the claim of compassionate appointment as well as for payment of compensation in accordance with law, now the decision has been taken by the respondents vide order dated 3rd April, 2010. The amount of Rs.50000/has also been paid to the petitioner. In view of this fact, there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. Hence, this contempt application is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any lesser amount paid, she can challenge the same before the appropriate forum, but the fact remains that till today these orders have not been challenged by the petitioner, meaning thereby that the orders dated 3rd April, 2010 has been accepted by the petitioner.;