Kerala High Court
Leelamma Jacob vs Mr.James Varghese I.A.S on 9 January, 2009
Author: K.T.Sankaran
Bench: K.T.Sankaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 1679 of 2008(S)
1. LEELAMMA JACOB, AGED 62 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MR.JAMES VARGHESE I.A.S.,
... Respondent
2. SARALAMMA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
3. MR. SAKTHIDHARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.ESM.KABEER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :09/01/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Contempt Court Case (Civil) No. 1679 of 2008-S
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th January, 2009.
J U D G E M E N T
The petitioner alleges that the respondents wilfully and deliberately violated the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment. The question involved in the writ petition was whether provisional service rendered by the Government employees and aided school teachers were to be counted for the purpose of grade promotions. That was decided in O.P.No.36489/2000 as well as in the case reported in 2004(3) KLT 533 holding that it would be counted. At the time when the Writ Petition came up for hearing, it was pointed out that the Writ Appeal against the judgment holding that the period will be counted, was pending. In the said circumstances, this court disposed of the Writ Petition in the following matter.
"Since the petitioner's claims are identical with those already decided, after hearing he learned Government Pleader, I direct hat similar reliefs are to be extended to the petitioner and the monetary benefits arising from such declaration are also to be extended to her preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2. The Government Pleader had, however, referred to the pendency of a writ appeal against the judgment quoted. It will be permissible for the Government to advise the petitioner of any circumstances, which may disable them to comply with the directions as above.
The original petition is disposed of as above." Cont. Court Case (C)No. 1679 of 2008-S 2
2. It is submitted by the petitioner that Writ Appeal No.1224/2005 was disposed of on 26.6.2006 and therefore there is no justification for not implementing the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that challenging the judgment in Writ Appeal, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court and it is pending. In view of the reference made in the last para of Annexure A1, I do not find that the respondent could be blamed in taking the stand that the matter could be finalised only after disposal of the Special Leave Petition. It cannot be said that there is a deliberate and wilful disobedience of the directions and orders contained in Annexure A1 judgment. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the pendency of the Special Leave petition, benefits were given to similarly situated persons. Closing of this contempt case should not stand in the way of the petitioner in approaching the Government for a similar relief.
Sd/-
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
//True Copy//
ab PA to Judge
Cont. Court Case (C)No. 1679 of 2008-S
3