IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 949 of 2008(S)
1. P.T.SIMON, ASST.ENGINEER (CIVIL),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DR.T.K.NARAYANAN, AGED ABOUT 55,
... Respondent
2. P.G.THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 52, S/O.GEORGE
For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO
For Respondent :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :15/10/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Cont. case (C).No.949 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Calicut
University. He filed O.P.No.2556/96 claiming certain reliefs;
aggrieved by the promotion granted to his erstwhile juniors to
the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer. That writ petition
was disposed of as per judgment dated 24.1.2005 stating that in
terms of the order dated 25.12.1988 issued by the Registrar on
behalf of the Vice Chancellor, the petitioner was reverted as
Overseer/Draftsman while he was reinstated after a disciplinary
proceedings. Accordingly, this Court concluded that the
petitioner’s promotion as Assistant Engineer is a fresh promotion
and he can reckon his seniority only with effect from 27.7.1989.
On that view, O.P.2556/96 was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed
O.P.No.11029/00, which was disposed of as per judgment dated
19.6.2007, on the basis of which, this contempt of court case is
filed. Noticing the judgment in O.P.2556/96, it was held by this
COC.949/08
Page numbers
Court in the judgment in O.P.11029/00 that the case of the
petitioner for revision of his grade can be determined only on the
basis of his entitlement to placement as found in the judgment in
O.P.2556/96. Accordingly, O.P.11029/00 was disposed of,
directing that an order will be issued by the competent authority
in the light of the judgment in O.P.2556/96, deciding on the
claims raised by the petitioner in O.P.11029/00. This contempt
of court case is filed on the allegation that the direction in the
judgment in O.P.11029/00 has not been complied with.
2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit placing
therewith Ext.R1(a), the order issued following the judgment in
O.P.11029/00, though immediately after the institution of the
contempt of court case. Through the reply affidavit, the
petitioner attempted to demonstrate that the decision contained
in Ext.R1(a) is contrary to his entitlement that would legitimately
flow out of the pay revision orders and according to him, he is
entitled to two promotions, while that is not what is conceded to
by the competent authority in Ext.R1(a) order. The dispute thus
COC.949/08
Page numbers
calls for an adjudication as to the correctness of Ext.R1(a) and
the acceptability of the petitioner’s contention asserting his
entitlement to better service benefits or retiral benefits. This
would essentially be beyond the scope of a contempt of court
case under the Act in hand and would be impermissible for
adjudication in this matter.
For the foregoing reasons, leaving open the right of the
petitioner to contest the correctness of the decision contained in
Ext.R1(a), this case is closed.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.