Compassionate appointment outside the governing scheme is void, and termination taken in compliance with earlier directions does not attract contempt.

Contempt proceedings are not warranted where an employer terminates services after notice and in purported compliance with an earlier court direction, especially while a separate writ challenge to the termination remains pending. The text also explains that compassionate appointment is a limited exception to equality in public employment and is valid only within the governing scheme and for eligible dependants. An appointment made outside the scheme, by a person not covered as a dependent beneficiary and long after the employee's death, is treated as without authority and a nullity, so its cancellation cannot support contempt action.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in initiating contempt proceedings against the appellants for terminating the respondent's services pursuant to the earlier order in the connected contempt matter. (ii) Whether the respondent's compassionate appointment was legally sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in initiating contempt proceedings against the appellants for terminating the respondent's services pursuant to the earlier order in the connected contempt matter.

Analysis: The respondent's services had been terminated after issuance of a show-cause notice and in purported compliance with directions passed in the earlier contempt proceeding concerning illegal compassionate appointments. The action was taken after notice and consideration, and was supported by the appellants as a step taken to give effect to the High Court's earlier directions in the connected matter. In these circumstances, the initiation of a fresh contempt proceeding against the appellants was not warranted, particularly when the respondent's writ petition challenging the termination was still pending and the termination had been made in asserted compliance with another order of the same High Court.

Conclusion: The contempt proceeding ought not to have been initiated, and the appellants could not be proceeded against for contempt on these facts.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent's compassionate appointment was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional requirement of equality in public employment and can be made only within the limits of a valid scheme and only for the intended beneficiaries. A person who is neither a dependent child nor the widow of the deceased employee cannot claim such appointment as of right. On the admitted facts, the respondent was not the natural grandson of the deceased employee, the appointment was made long after the death of the employee, and the appointment was inconsistent with the Institute's scheme and the constitutional scheme governing public employment. An appointment made without authority and contrary to the governing scheme is a nullity, and the mere dismissal of an earlier writ petition did not cure the inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The respondent's compassionate appointment was illegal and without jurisdiction, and its cancellation could not sustain contempt proceedings against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed and the contempt proceedings were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A contempt proceeding cannot be maintained where the impugned administrative action was taken bona fide in purported compliance with an earlier court direction, and an appointment made dehors the governing compassionate-appointment scheme and contrary to the constitutional scheme of equality is a nullity.

---