JUDGMENT This appeal has arisen out of order dated 13.10.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Criminal Misc. Case No.194(C) of 2007. 2. The appellant had filed the aforesaid criminal case to punish the opposite parties, who had committed willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 21.09.2006 passed by the writ Court in writ petition no.5502 (S/S) of 2004 (Satya Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. and others). Prior to it the appellant had filed a writ petition no.26 (S/S) of 2004 seeking compassionate appointment on the demise of his father while in service. Since the limitation prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (in short 'the Rules, 1974'), which is five years, was expired and the power of relaxation was vested with the State Government in terms of proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 08.01.2004 disposed of the writ petition with direction to the State Government to examine the appellant/petitioner's case in accordance with the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974. 3. Pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the Secretary, Irrigation Department of the State Government vide office memorandum dated 31.03.2004 took a decision and rejected the petitioner's claim of compassionate appointment being not eligible for appointment. It was observed by the Government that on the date of death, his father was a Part Time Tubewell Operator. The Part Time Tubewell Operators are not the part of permanent establishment, therefore, in terms of Government Order dated 26.10.1998, the ward of the said employee was not entitled to get an appointment on compassionate ground. Aggrieved appellant/petitioner had challenged the said order before the learned Single Judge in writ petition no.5502 (S/S) of 2004. The learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 31.03.2004 passed by the State Government as well as order dated 22.12.2003 and issued a direction to the opposite parties to reconsider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate order providing him employment on an appropriate post in the department. The learned Single Judge had observed that "it was brought to the notice of the Court that the services of the petitioner's father were regularized vide order dated 10.07.2000 with effect from 18.05.1994, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge had observed that "it was brought to the notice of the Court that the services of the petitioner's father were regularized vide order dated 10.07.2000 with effect from 18.05.1994, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Thus it can be taken that the petitioner's father Shiv Kumar Pandey was a regular tube-well operator at the time of his death on 20.08.1994". The order dated 10.07.2000 has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to this appeal. 4. We have perused it and found that the subject of this order was to provide the similar benefit to the Part Time Tubewell Operators w.e.f. 18.05.1994 as that of regular Tubewell Operators, however, we find that it had nowhere indicated that the services of the appellant's father had been regularized w.e.f. 18.05.1994. Since the respondents had not complied with the order dated 21.09.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition no.5502 (S/S) of 2004, the appellant/petitioner had filed a criminal case no.194(c) of 2007 in which the learned Single Judge had considered the effect of Government Order dated 18.07.2000 and observed that "the Government Order dated 18.07.2000 nowhere stipulates that Part Time Tube Well Operators shall be entitled for regularization with effect from retrospective date, it only provided for monetary benefits". The learned Single Judge dealing with the contempt matter had further observed that "the father of the petitioner having died in August 1994 while working as a Part Time Tube Well Operator, at the most was entitled for the equivalent wages of a regular employee. It cannot be comprehended that his services stood regularized with effect from a retrospective date". With this observation, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the contempt petition, therefore, the present appeal has been filed before this Court. 5. The main grounds of the appeal as mentioned are that the learned Single Judge has acted beyond the scope and the jurisdiction of the Court and has adversely affected the merit of the writ petition of the appellant and further the learned Single Judge has failed to give a decision on violation and disobedience of the order passed by the writ Court. 6. We have heard Mr. Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Q.H. Rizvi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record. 7. 6. We have heard Mr. Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Q.H. Rizvi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record. 7. The order dated 21.09.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.5502 (S/S) of 2004 is based on the finding that the services of the petitioner's father were regularized vide order dated 18.07.2000 w.e.f. 18.05.1994, whereas the learned Single Judge dealing with the contempt matter had perused the said order and found that it nowhere stipulated that the Part Time Tubewell Operator shall be entitled for regularization with effect from retrospective date rather it only provided for monetary benefits. We have also perused the order dated 18.07.2000 and found that the Government had taken a decision to provide the monetary benefits to the Part Time Tubewell Operators w.e.f. 18.05.1994 as that of regular employee but it nowhere speaks that the Part Time Tubewell Operator had been regularized in service w.e.f. 18.05.1994. 8. Therefore, we are of the view that the deceased (father of the appellant) being part time tubewell operator having less than three years service could not be termed as an 'employee' as has been defined under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974. 9. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.