(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. The Superintendent of Police, Valsad is personally present before the Court. Learned AGP submitted that respondent proposes to rely upon the letter written to the appellant on 13th December, 2002 calling for certain documents, as mentioned in the letter dated 10th August, 2012 addressed to the petitioner. It was seen from the Revised Scheme for grant of compassionate appointment, as contained in the Government Resolution dated 10th March, 2000, that specific procedure was prescribed by the Government itself, and that Resolution itself required the Head of the Department to collect all the necessary information and in fact help the bereaved family in availing the benefit of the scheme. That procedure is apparently not followed and not even claimed to have been followed. Instead, the respondent appeared to be relying upon introduction of the new Scheme notified on 16th March, 2005 to deny benefit of the Scheme for compassionate appointment as well as the direction of this Court in decision dated 3rd July, 2012 in Letters Patent Appeal No.786 of 2012.
2. Thus, prima facie the respondent appeared to be consciously and deliberately committing contempt of court and hence, the petition is required to be admitted for following further procedure. However, learned AGP sought time to ensure that the officer concerned for the alleged contempt being identified and named for the purpose of framing of charge. Hence, S.O. to 24th December, 2012. Learned AGP is requested to convey to the learned Government Pleader that he may personally attend the Court on that date.
(D.H.WAGHELA, J.) (G.R.UDHWANI, J.) Tuvar Page 2 of 2