JUDGMENT : Shishir Kumar, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2010, which has been passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal filed by the applicant dated 08.10.2010. 3. It appears that the applicant's father was in service of the corporation died in harness in 1984. In 1984 mother of the applicant was given an appointment under the dying in harness Rules. She also died on 02.06.1992. At that time, applicant was minor and when he became major, made an application before the competent authority for giving appointment under the Dying in harness Rules. The same was rejected on the ground that it has been filed belatedly after the lapse of period as mentioned in the Rules. The said order was challenged by filing a writ petition No. 21041 of 2002. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 14.07.2010. Applicant aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed a special Appeal No. 906 of 2010, which was finally allowed remitting the matter to the relevant authority for consideration on merits. The operative portion of order is being reproduced herein under: Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Power Corporation is however right up to the extent that these aspects that an appointment can be afforded only if there is an evidence on these aspects and even if this Court arrived at the conclusion that the matters require consideration then to even the authority will have to examine this and then proceed with the matter. We, therefore, in view of the aforesaid submissions raised and the conclusion drawn and in the light of the rule making provisions for relaxation in the time limit for moving the application, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 14th July, 2010 as also the order impugned dated 18th January, 2002 (annexure 1 to the writ petition) and remit the matter to the competent authority, who shall proceed to examine the claim of the Appellant in the light of the observations made hereinabove and pass an appropriate order within a period of eight weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. 4. Now on the basis of the direction issued by this Court, a decision has been taken and the claim of the applicant has been rejected by order dated 22.1.2010. 5. 4. Now on the basis of the direction issued by this Court, a decision has been taken and the claim of the applicant has been rejected by order dated 22.1.2010. 5. Applicant aggrieved by the aforesaid order has approached this Court by filing the present application for contempt with a submission that the order of this Court has been deliberately disobeyed and direction issued has not been complied with. On the same ground, the claim of the applicant has been rejected for appointment under the dying in harness rules. 6. After consideration of the claim of the applicant and after perusal of the record, the Division Bench of this Court, has come to the conclusion that as regards the rejection of the claim of the applicant only on the ground of period prescribed in the rules for making an application has not been properly considered. The authority has not considered the issue in prospective manner taking into consideration to the fact that there is power of relaxation, in case it is found that the financial condition of the family continues as it was on the date when the concerned employee had died in harness and in spite of the payment of their retiral dues and other benefits like family pension, the financial condition is the same on the date of making application. Such finding has to be recorded, as the finding was not recorded and this issue was not considered by the Hon'ble Single Jude while rejecting the claim of the applicant, the Division Bench of this Court has considered the issue and after setting aside the orders passed by the authority concerned as well as the learned Single Judge has remitted the matter to the authority concerned to take appropriate decision considering such issue of relaxation of period of limitation for making application. 7. Now, from perusal of the order, I have gone through the order in which para wise comments has been recorded in detail. After recording a finding that after retirement, the family pension was being paid till the applicant attains the age of 25 years. Further a finding has been recorded that no cogent reason has been mentioned in the application that why this application has been filed after lapse of sufficient period. After recording a finding that after retirement, the family pension was being paid till the applicant attains the age of 25 years. Further a finding has been recorded that no cogent reason has been mentioned in the application that why this application has been filed after lapse of sufficient period. In para No. 3 a finding has also been recorded that after the death of Smt. Sharda Devi mother of the applicant, the amount of gratuity, provident fund and other amount was paid to the applicant on 07.03.2001, and other benefits have also been paid. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court, the Court has only directed to consider and decide and take an appropriate decision and if the applicant is aggrieved by the order passed upon the direction issued by this Court, he can challenge the same before the appropriate Court. This application for contempt is hereby dismissed. 8. No order as to costs.