IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 855 of 2010()
1. N.R.VIJAYAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. E.PRAKASH
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :14/10/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 855 of 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26799 of 2003 is
before this Court alleging contumacious act on the part of the
respondent/contemnor, stating that the direction given by the
learned Single Judge as per judgment dated 25.08.2008 in the
writ petition has not been complied with. Though the
respondent has already passed an order, it is stated as not in
conformity with the directions given by the learned Single
Judge.
2. Obviously, the grievance of the petitioner before
the learned Single Judge was that he was made to continue in
service for nearly 21 years, without regularisation and when
the question of regularisation was being considered by the
Government, he attained the age of superannuation and came
out from the service on 30.09.2001. The benefit of
regularisation was denied placing reliance on G.O.(P)
COC No. 855 of 2010
-:2:-
No.39/2002/P&ARD dated 26.08.2002. When it was challenged,
seeking to grant pensionary benefits, a verdict was passed by the
learned Single Judge directing the matter to be considered in a
‘limited angle’ with reference to Rule 39 of Part II K.S. & S.S.R,
so as to make the petitioner eligible to have the pensionary
benefits. It was accordingly, that the matter was considered and
an order was passed by the Government (produced and marked
as Annexure IV) holding that the petitioner was not entitled to
have any benefit; which in turn forms the basis for the contempt
petition stating that it is contrary to the mandate given by the
learned Single Judge.
3. The respondent has filed an affidavit stating that
the matter was considered, of course in compliance with the
directions given by this Court. After ascertaining the factual and
legal position, it was observed that the case of the petitioner did
not come within the purview of Rule 39 of Part II K.S. & S.S.R
(Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the counter affidavit) and it was
accordingly, that Annexure IV order was passed. It is also
contended that there is absolutely no wilful default or lapse on
COC No. 855 of 2010
-:3:-
the part of the respondent in any manner. However, with regard
to the delay in passing the orders, regrets and apologies have
been tendered in the affidavit.
4. Going by the materials on record, it is revealed
that the direction given by the learned Single Judge was to have
the matter considered with reference to Rule 39 of Part II K.S. &
S.S.R and no positive declaration or direction was given. In the
last paragraph of the judgment, it was stated as follows:
“If the Government decides to regularize the service
of the petitioner for the purpose of granting him pensionary
benefits, the pensionary benefits shall be fixed and disbursed to
him within a period of three months from the date of which
revised orders are passed on Ext.P10.”
It was pursuant to the above direction, that the
matter was considered by the Government and a finding was
arrived at holding that the petitioner was not entitled to have the
benefit of Rule 39 of Part II K.S. & S.S.R. If the petitioner is
aggrieved of the said order, i.e. Annexure IV, the remedy of the
petitioner is to challenge the same by way of appropriate
proceedings and obtain a positive declaration and relief to have
COC No. 855 of 2010
-:4:-the pensionary benefits granted in favour of him; if eligible in
accordance with law.
In the above circumstances, this Court finds that no
further steps are required to be pursued in the contempt matter.
Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed, however, without
prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue
appropriate proceedings, so as to have the grievance redressed
as mentioned above.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon,
Judge.
ttb
COC No. 855 of 2010
-:5:-