Judgment ARUN MADAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS contempt peti-tipn arises out of the order dated 21. 4. 1995, passed by this court in the abovenoted writ petition. The short question which arbse for consideration of this court at the time of passing of the aforesaid order was as to whether the fixation of cut off date i. e. 2nd september, 1972 occurring in the definition of term "deceased Government Servant Dying while in Service Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "rules") by which the benefit of recruitment to the members of the family of the deceased government servant is limited only to the members of the family of the government servant dying on or after the cut off date as referred to above i. e. 2nd September, 1972. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this contempt petition are. that the late father of the petitioner was appointed on work charge basis by Public Health Engineering Department (for short p. H. E. D. } (Respondent No. 3) but later on he was fixed in his regular pay scale. The petitioners father died on duty on 14. 7. 1969 while the petitioner was a minor. The matter was represented through the mother of the petitioner to the concerned authorities so that the petitioner could suitably be given appointment under the Rules of 1976. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had already been given benefits of arrears which he had already received from the department under approval of the Treasury and hence no further benefit could be extended to the petitioner under the rules. The petitioner was however, taken in service as Class IV servant on the post of chowkidar and thereafter promoted to the post of Helper, on which post he has been discharging his duties till date. ( 2 ) IN the reply to the show-cause notice which has been filed by the respondents, it has been contended in para 4 of the said reply that no representation was made on behalf of the petitioner by his mother nor any application under the rules of 1976 seeking appointment of the petitioner, was ever made to the concerned authorities and, therefore, the question of the petitioner being given compassionate appointment under the Rules, does not arise. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner filed a contempt petition under Section 12 of the Courts act inter alia on the grounds that since the order dated 12nd April, 1995 passed by this court had not been complied with by the respondents/contemnors directing them as to why they should not be punished for disobedience of the aforesaid orders of this court. ( 4 ) !n reply to the contempt petition, the respondents filed their reply to the showcause notice issued by this court on 9. 9. 1996 by contending inter alia that they have absolutely no intention to disobey the aforesaid orders passed by this court and rather not in any manner as has been so contended by the petitioner. By way of clarification, the respondents stated in the reply that the petitioner had already been appointed on the post of helper prior to the issuance of show-cause notice and though he had earlier been appointed on compassionate grounds as a Chowkidar in the office of Executive Engineer, P. H. E. D. , Alwar, under the Rajasthan Work Charge Employee Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred as the "rules") by and under which his later father was earlier holding the said post of Helper prior to his demise and the respondents had allowed the petitioner to continue His services as a chowkidar and subsequently he was absorbed as Helper w. e. f. 8. 2. 1990 and he was" been continuing on the said post till date. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length perused the relevant rules on the subject as well as the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also the pleadings on the record of the trial court. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended at the Bar that the petitioner should have been given permanent appointment on the post of Helper, though he has not disputed this fact that the petitioners late father Shri Lilaram was given appointment by the respondents under the rules of 1964 by which he was governed. ( 6 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be absolutely fallacious and the contentions which he had advanced are entirely contrary to the rules since no permanent appointment can be sought by a party on compassionate grounds to which he has already been accommodated contrary to the rules and particularly when the appointment was given by the respondents by way of accommodation to which no legal right flows in favour of a party. The object of compassionate appointment, is in fact to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment on a particular post as a matter of right. Hence, I am of the considered view that when the petitioner was appointed as a Chowkidar under Rules of 1964, he had no legal right or lien against the respondents to claim permanent appointment on the said post. It was only with a view to tide over the sudden financial crisis consequent upon the death of his father that the respondents had shown compassion and benevolence by accommodating the petitioner on the said post. It is very surprising to note that the learned counsel for the petitioner has adopted a stand contrary to the Rules and has repeatedly urged that the petitioner has a right for permanent employment particularly as per Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1964, an employee who have been in continuous service for not less than two years or more, except those covered by Sub-rule (1), shall be eligible for the status of semi-permanent work-charged employees or of semi-permanent regular technical staff, provided their record of service, in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory, sub-rule 4 of Rule 3 stipulates as under"no employee shall acquire the status specified in Sub-rules (2) and (3) without the prior sanction of the competent authority, as may be notified by the head of the Department from time to time. "sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 stipulates as under" (2) Employee, who have been in service for ten years, or more, shall be eligible for the status of permanent work-charged employees provided their record of service, in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. "sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 stipulates as under" (2) Employee, who have been in service for ten years, or more, shall be eligible for the status of permanent work-charged employees provided their record of service, in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. " ( 7 ) THUS, from the perusal of the above rules, It is clearly apparent that only after completion of two years of minimum service, an employee is entitled to the conferment of semi-permanent status though not as a matter of right as the same is again subject to the satisfactory service on record rendered by such ah employee to the satisfaction of the competent authority and thereafter, even for claiming the permanent status, he is not entitled unless and until he has completed atleast ten years of satisfactory service. ( 8 ) MR. Munish Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents/contemnors has contended at the Bar that no case for contempt is in fact made out against the respondents particularly when the respondents have fully complied with the aforesaid orders passed by this court. He has further contended at the Bar that the petitioner himself has vide his letter dated 19. 8. 1996 (Annexure R/l) has executed a receipt in favour of the respondents wherein he has stated that the petitioner has in compliance of the aforesaid orders, passed in the above-rioted writ petition has already received all necessary and consequential benefits as admissible to him from the respondents in accordance with the Rules. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that a sum of Rs. 46,920/- has already been paid to the petitioner by way of pay fixation and also the arrears to which he was entitled in accordance with the rules and still if any amount is due to him the petitioner should approach the department by way of proper representation in this regard. In order to be satisfied myself I have also perused the statements of accounts which have been shown to this court during the course of hearing by the learned counsel for the respondents. The perusal of the statement reveals that the accounts of the petitioner have been duly settled and he has been given all the arrears of pay difference as stated, which he was drawing and the consolidated salary of Rs. 2. The perusal of the statement reveals that the accounts of the petitioner have been duly settled and he has been given all the arrears of pay difference as stated, which he was drawing and the consolidated salary of Rs. 2. 019/- as admissible for the post of Helper as in July, 1996 has already been paid to the petitioner by the insurance Company (Respondent No. 4) there has also been subsequent revisions from time to time on account of increments. ( 10 ) KEEPING in view the aforesaid material on record and the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, prima facie I am satisfied that no case for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents has been successfully made out by the petitioner. ( 11 ) I am fortified in my observations from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of haryana and Ors. and State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh. ( 12 ) IN the matter of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. (supra), the Apex court has observed as under :"the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts above classes III and IV, is legally impermissible. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts above classes III and IV, is legally impermissible. "in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Umrap Singh (supra), the Apex Court has held as under :"having accepted the appointment as ldc, the respondents right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration oh compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of "endless compassion". Eligibility to be appointed as sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of selection is yet another thing. Merely because of the so called eligibility, the Single judge of the High Court was persuaded to the view that direction be issued under proviso to rule 5 of Rules, which has no application to the facts of this case. " ( 13 ) AS a result of above discussion, I find no merit in the aforesaid contempt petition and the same is consequently dismissed and the contempt notices are discharged, I am further of the view that since the orders dated 21st of April, 1995 passed by this court in s. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1668/1990, had already stands complied with by the respondents and the respondents have already extended the necessary benefits to which the petitioner is entitled on the post of Helper as permissible to him under the Rules as he is not entitled for any further relief. There will be no order as to costs. Contempt notices discharged