JUDGMENT : ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Mr. F.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D.S. Neog, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1, 3, 4 and 5 being the authorities under the Irrigation Department of Government of Assam and Ms. M.D. Bora, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 6 respectively, being the Chief Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, Cachar. 2. The father of the petitioner Ananta Saikia who was a helper in the office of the Executive Engineer, Silchar Mechanical Division (Irrigation), Silchar died in harness 27.03.1999 and on his death, an application for compassionate application was made by the petitioner on 30.11.2009. At the time when the deceased employee died, the petitioner was a minor and it is stated that the application for compassionate appointment was made upon attaining the age of majority. Even otherwise there was an initial application by the mother of the petitioner on 23.08.1999 which was within the proximity of the death of the deceased employee. The application of the petitioner for compassionate application was rejected by the SLC in its meeting of 29.09.2012 on the ground that the said application was made beyond three months from the date of the death of the employee and secondly, that at the time of death, the petitioner was a minor. 3. The said rejection was assailed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1806/2014 wherein by the order dated 02.04.2014 it was provided as extracted: “It is the case of the petitioner that the District Level Committee, Cachar in its meeting held on 23.7.2010 had recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. From the proceedings of the District Level Committee, it is seen that the date of birth of the petitioner is 29.7.1988. Date of submission of the application for compassionate appointment is shown as 30.11.2009. Thus, he had submitted the application after he had attained 21 years of age. For the aforesaid reason, prima facie, the ground of rejection of the application of the petitioner does not appear to be justified. Accordingly, the decision rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Level Committee (respondent No. 5) to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for appointment on compassionate ground in its next meeting. Writ Petition is disposed of. No cost.” 4. Accordingly, the decision rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Level Committee (respondent No. 5) to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for appointment on compassionate ground in its next meeting. Writ Petition is disposed of. No cost.” 4. A reading of the pronouncement of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1806/2014 would go to show that the Court had taken note that the application for compassionate appointment was submitted by the petitioner upon attaining the age of majority and therefore, the SLC was not justified in rejecting the same on the ground of delay in submission of the application. Accordingly, the rejection of the application for compassionate application was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the SLC for a fresh consideration. 5. In the aforesaid background, the order impugned dated 29.04.2015 had been passed by Sri. K. Doley, Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Irrigation Department. 6. The order dated 29.04.2015 is extracted as below: “Whereas a proposal for appointment on Compassionate ground in respect of Shri Shri Anupam Saikia S/o LateAnanta Saikia, Ex-Helper, O/o the E.E. Silchar Mechl. Division (1), Kanakpur has been received from the O/o the Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Assam vide their Letter No. CEI(E)77/2011/56 dated 15.06.2011 and the same has been placed in the State Level Committee meeting held on 29.09.2012 for recommendation. As per Personnel (B) Department O.M. No. ABP/357/80/Vol-I/303, dated 02.03.2009 the proposal was rejected by the SLC as on the date of death of his father on that time he attained the age of 10 years 7 months 28 days. When he submitted his application for appointment on Compassionate Ground after lapse of 10 years 8 months 3 days which is beyond the time period of submission of 3(three) months. The proposal was rejected by the S.L.C. as lower age as per existing norms of appointment under Compassionate ground. As per norms applicant should apply for appointment on Compassionate ground within 3 months of the date of death. In this case Late Ananta Saikia was expired on 27.03.199 and the son of the deceased employee had submitted application for appointment on Compassionate ground on 30.11.2009 after lapse of 10 years 8 months 3 days of the date of death of his father. In this case Late Ananta Saikia was expired on 27.03.199 and the son of the deceased employee had submitted application for appointment on Compassionate ground on 30.11.2009 after lapse of 10 years 8 months 3 days of the date of death of his father. ORDER After careful consideration of all fact, this Department is not in a position to recommend the candidate for appointment on Compassionate ground due to non fulfillment of criteria.” 7. A reading of the order of the Secretary makes it discernable that the Secretary ventured into the aspect that the SLC had already rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of delayed submission and therefore, the Secretary took a view that it should not be placed before the SLC any further. In other words, the view taken by the Secretary appears to be a judgment by the Secretary over the judgment of this Court dated 02.04.2014 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1806/2014. In fact, in the order of the Secretary, the order of this Court dated 02.04.2014 in W.P. (C) No. 1806/2014 had been taken note of meaning thereby it cannot be a case that the Secretary is not aware of the judgment of this Court. 8. The Secretary being an authority subjected to the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot take a different view over a judgment of this Court rendered under Article 226 and any such reversal of a judgment of this Court by the Secretary would amount to a willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court. 9. Registry to issue contempt notice on Sri. K. Doley, the then Secretary/the Secretary of the Irrigation Department requiring him to show cause as to why appropriate contempt proceeding should not be initiated. 10. The learned counsel for the Irrigation Department to provide the Registry the present address of Sri. K. Dloey, the then Secretary/the Secretary of the Irrigation Department. 11. On the merit of this writ petition, as we find that the order impugned is in complete contrast with the judgment of this Court dated 02.04.2014 in W.P. (C) No. 1806/2014, we set aside the said order and direct the authorities in the Irrigation Department to place the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment before the next available SLC in complete compliance of the earlier order dated 02.04.2014 in W.P. (C) No. 1806/2014. 12. This order be brought to the notice of the Registry for issuing the contempt notice to the person noted above. 13. Writ Petition stands allowed as indicated above.