The duty to exact obedience of the court's order, the need to preserve the majesty and dignity of institutions, and the lack of enforcement of rights by other candidates enlisted for compassionate appointment were the central legal points established in the judgment.

Dipankar Datta, J.

A simple case having taken somewhat of a complex turn in course of hearing is being dealt with by this judgment.

2. The petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment upon the death-in-harness of his father on March 21, 2012. At the time of his death, the father of the petitioner was a Senior Assistant of the West Bengal Housing Board (hereafter the Board) and had less than two years left for retirement.

3. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Housing Commissioner of the Board by an order contained in memo dated June 18, 2015. Such order was challenged by the petitioner before a learned Judge of this Court. The challenge failed, and his writ petition was dismissed by an order dated January 6, 2016.

4. The order of rejection was carried in appeal by the petitioner. A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court upon hearing the parties was of the opinion that the petitioner's case, in the interest of justice, required a fresh consideration. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of by an order dated June 7, 2016 by setting aside the order of the writ court under challenge and by directing the Housing Commissioner to consider the petitioner's "claim for compassionate appointment afresh on the basis of the notifications which are applicable for such claim". An enquiry was directed to be conducted within three months with further direction to intimate the petitioner the result thereof within a further period of seven days.

5. The Board accepted the aforesaid order dated June 7, 2016, resulting in the same attaining finality.

6. Upon due communication of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated June 7, 2016, an enquiry committee was constituted. Despite such committee having commenced its enquiry, the enquiry report was not forthcoming. This resulted in presentation of this contempt application on December 9, 2016. Copy of the contempt application was directed to be served on an Additional Government Pleader who was present in Court by an order dated March 24, 2017 and the matter was directed to be listed on April 7, 2017.

7. Close on the heels of such order, the Housing Commissioner of the Board by an order [contained in his memo dated March 29, 2017] purported to inform the petitioner that the report of enquiry was affirmative on the basis of income criteria and that the "office has been directed to take necessary steps for appointment". The petitioner has since brought such memo on record by filing a supplementary affidavit dated October 25, 2017.

8. An order dated February 16, 2018 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on the contempt application revealed that the said Bench was pleased to call upon the contemnors-respondents to show-cause, within a period of two weeks, why rule under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall not be issued for alleged disobedience of the order dated June 7, 2016 and why they shall not be punished in the event of being found guilty of committing contempt. No cause was, however, shown.

9. The application for contempt was listed before this Bench on November 13, 2018. The supplementary affidavit of the petitioner was taken on record by an order of even date passed by this Bench. It was found on perusal of such affidavit that despite the petitioner having been found entitled to appointment on compassionate ground and that appointment would follow shortly, nearly eighteen months had passed without the offer of appointment reaching the petitioner. A prayer for adjournment for two weeks was made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, who was then appearing for the alleged contemnors-respondents for issuance of the offer of appointment in favour of the petitioner. While expressing its view that an order having been made more than eighteen months back by the Housing Commissioner and that it was for such commissioner to ensure that his office implements his order without any further delay, the expectation of this Bench that the offer