ANITA KUMARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
Cont.(Cvl)/636/2024 · 2025-02-28
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 19629 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 19629 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 636 of 2024
-----
Anita Kumari, Wife/Widow of Late Gobind Narayan, C/O Lalan Kumar Sahu, Advocate, R/o South Shivpuri, P.O & P.S.-Hazaribagh, Dist.-Hazaribagh
… …. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Sri Chandan Kumar, The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Ramgarh, P.O & P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist.-Ramgarh
… …. Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-1A
----- Oral Order
04 / Dated : 28.02.2025
1. Petitioner is before this Court for initiating contempt proceeding against the contemnor opposite party, for not complying with the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4500 of 2022 on
05.01.2024.
2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner for quashing the recommendation of the District Establishment Committee made in its meeting held on 26.05.2020, superseding the earlier recommendation for appointment to Class-III post. Petitioner was aggrieved by the recommendation for appointment to Class-IV post, as she had failed to qualify the Hindi Typing Test.
3. This Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent no. 5-Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Ramgarh to take a reasoned decision in the matter within eight weeks from the date of that order by considering sympathetically the case of the petitioner.
4. In pursuant of the order, representation of the petitioner was
disposed of by reasoned order, thereby not acceding to the prayer for appointment to Class-III post.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that turning
2
down the representation of the petitioner amounted to non-compliance with the order of this Court. Further there was delay in disposal of the representation as it was beyond eight weeks for compliance.
6. This Court is of the view that the direction was confined to dispose of the representation, and not to decide the matter in a particular manner. Since the reasoned order has been passed, the order passed by this Court on 05.01.2024 has been complied with.
Accordingly, this proceeding is dropped and the contempt petition stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satayendra