Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 813 (JHR)

Ram Janam Paswan v. State of Jharkhand

2009-05-21

D.K.SINHA, GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2009
Judgment This petition for contempt has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 2.11.2007 passed in L.P.A. No. 245 of 2006, by which the Division Bench of this Court had disposed of the appeal and directed the petitioner and other contesting parties to approach the District Compassionate Committee along with their respective representations and records. The Committee was directed to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the contesting respondents and directed it to decide the issue afresh uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the Court. The counsel for the petitioner alleged that the order has not been complied as no order has been passed. But the counsel for the respondent contemnors appeared and submitted that the order has been passed by the Additional Collector, Garhwa to whom the authority was delegated by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa who was competent to pass an order as a Member of the District Compassionate Committee. He had heard the petitioner as also the other contesting respondents on the matter and has now passed a reasoned order on 27.4.2009 and thus, the order passed by the Division Bench stands complied. The counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the order should not be treated as complied since the Additional Collector was not competent to pass the order but this plea has no substance as there is no material before us to infer that the Deputy Commissioner had no authority to delegate the power to the Additional Collector to decide the matter in regard to the claim of compassionate appointment. The parties admittedly are claming appointment on compassionate ground on the plea that he is the son of the deceased from his second wife and therefore, entitled to the appointment whereas the respondent claims for compassionate appointment in place of deceased father on the ground that he is the son of the first wife. Thus, the petitioner and the respondent no.2 were claiming compassionate appointment in place of their deceased father but they are two sons from the two wives. The respondent is admittedly the eldest son of the deceased and the petitioner was further held disqualified on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. The counsel for the parties are still disputing and asserting their respective claim. The respondent is admittedly the eldest son of the deceased and the petitioner was further held disqualified on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. The counsel for the parties are still disputing and asserting their respective claim. However, the same cannot be adjudicated by way of a contempt petition and the fact remains that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for contempt, since the order has already been passed by the District Compassionate Committee. Thus the order sought to be complied stands implemented. Under the circumstance, no case for contempt is made out. Hence, this petition is dismissed.