- (1.) PETITIONER 'sfather died on 3rd April, 2002 and after his death, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the prescribed format. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the communication dated 31st May, 2005 on the ground that he applied after the expiry of 25 months and three days from the date of death of his father, whereas, the period of filing the application for compassionate appointment is 18 months. Petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No. 4828 of 2006 against the rejection order dated 31st May, 2005 before this Court. This writ petition was allowed vide order dated 27th November, 2006 holding that at the time of death of the father of the petitioner, there was no period of limitation and hence, subsequent insertion of period of limitation will not apply to his case. Accordingly, after setting aside the order of rejection for compassionate appointment, Respondents were directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on merits within a period of three months. Respondents have, accordingly, passed the order dated 15th January, 2007 again rejecting the claim on the ground of limitation stating, therein that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after a period of two years from the date of death of his father, late Dudhnath Yadav. This order is in gross violation of the directions earlier issued by this Court and thus invite contempt proceedings. However, taking lenient view, I choose not to initiate proceedings for contempt of the Court at this stage but at the same time after hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, the order impugned is set aside with a direction to the Respondents to re -examime the claim of the petitioner on merits and pass appropriate order within a period of two months and communicate the result to the petitioner.
(2.) WITH the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of.;