JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama for respondent No. 6 which is taken on record.

2. The instant petition has been preferred alleging willful disobedience of the order passed by the writ Court dated 1.8.2018 passed in W.P. No. 16857 (SB) of 2016 (Union of India v. Ms. Ranjeeta Bajpai) whereby the writ Court had directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in respect of her grievance for giving compassionate appointment within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of the order was served on the Authority concerned.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought on record alongwith the petition the order dated 15.4.2019 taken by the Railway Board rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment be taken note of.

4. The submission is that the petitioner claiming compassionate appointment had preferred a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal which came to be allowed and a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved, the respondent had preferred a writ petition before a Division Bench of this Court which came to be decided on 1.8.2018. The directions given by the writ Court was to the extent that the Full Bench decision of the Case of U.P. Power Corporation, Lucknow v. Urmila Devi, 2011(2) ADJ 432, wherein widowed daughter-in-law was considered for appointment.

6. It is further submitted that this aspect was to be considered by the Railway Board in terms of the directions issued by the writ Court, however, the respondent Authorities while deciding the representation of the petitioner moved on a tangent and not only found that the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Urmila Devi (Supra) was not applicable but it also rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that much time has lapsed and the immediate succor which was to be provided to the legal heirs/family has also vanished and for the said reason, the representation has been rejected.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that this ground which is the basis for rejecting the claim of the petitioner was neither raised before the CAT nor before the High Court and for the first time was introduced in the order dated 15.4.2019 while rejecting the claim. It is thus urged that respondents have willfully and deliberately violated the order and disobeyed for which they are liable to be punished.

8. Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the order passed by the writ Court only directed the respondents to consider the fresh representation which was to be made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks. The writ Court did not point or directed any particular manner in which the order had to be passed except in light of the observations which were made in the order dated 7.8.2018 passed by the writ Court.

9. It is further urged that the order of the writ Court was duly considered and the decision of a Full Bench in the case of Urmila Devi (Supra) was also considered by the Railway Board and thereafter the decision was taken on 15.4.2019.

10. The learned counsel for the respondents further urges that even if an additional ground is taken which renders the claim of the petitioner bad cannot be held to be willful default or disobedience of the order passed by the writ Court for the reason that the decision was to be taken in light of the order passed by the writ Court where a fresh representation was permitted to the petitioner to be made.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is submitted that there is no willful or deliberate disobedience and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed.

12. Having considered the rival submissions and from the perusal of the record, it will be necessary to relevant directions issued by the writ Court while passing the order