Disposed

S.Rajan v. a.S.Mohammed Sherif

Kerala HC4 Aug 2008Con.Case(C)/1795/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition challenged the respondent for allegedly disobeying orders regarding a worker's posting. Finding that the petitioner was regularized in the disputed post with retrospective effect, the Court held there was no deliberate disobedience and dropped the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings were dropped due to lack of deliberate obdience; pleadings application closed.

S.Rajan Vs a.S.Mohammed Sherif — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Cont.Case(C).No.1795 of 2007(S)

¶4

¶5

ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.A.1985/2007 DATED 13/08/2007

¶6

PETITIONER/APPELLANT:-------------------------------------S. RAJAN, S/O.V.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 43 YEARS, CASHIER/CLERK, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH & WELFARE SOCIETY, GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SRI.T.R.RAVI.

¶7

RESPONDENT: 2ND RESPONDENT:-

¶8

¶9

A.S. MOHAMMED SHERIF, AGED 48 YEARS, NAME OF THE FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH & WELFARE SOCIETY, GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN.

¶11

THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶12

H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J.

¶13

------------------------------------------------- Cont.Case (C).No.1795 of 2007-S

¶14

------------------------------------------------Dated, this the 4^th day of August, 2008

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

H.L.Dattu,C.J.

¶17

Complainant in this contempt petition, complains that the respondent has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C).No.17139 of 2004 dated 22.6.2007 and the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1985 of 2007 dated 13.08.2007.

¶18

In the writ petition filed, the petitioner had called in question Exhibit P7 order passed by the respondents, wherein they had reverted the petitioner, who was working temporarily as Cashier-Clerk, to the post of Binder. The learned Single Judge, while rejecting the writ petition, at paragraph 3 of the order, has stated as under:

¶19

“The petitioner has not produced the Recruitment Rules, prescribing the qualification and method of appointment to the post of Cashier-Clerk and he has not pleaded any where in the Writ Petition that he has been appointed in accordance with the Rules. Going by Ext.P1, it would appear that it is a posting otherwise than in accordance with the Rules. He has not been appointed as a probationer also. Therefore, he has no legal right to insist that he should be retained in that post for ever. So, the challenge against Ext.P7 is repelled and the Writ Petition is dismissed”.

¶20

Cont.Case (C).No.1795 of 2007-S - 2 -

¶21

In fact, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is rejected by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner in the writ petition had carried the matter by way of appeal before this Court in W.A.No.1985 of 2007. This Court, while agreeing with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, in fact, has rejected the Writ Appeal. In the course of the order, the learned Judges have observed the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. It was the case of the appellant before the Bench that the post of Binder is not available in the respondent-organization. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted before the Division Bench that if, for any reason, the post of Binder is not available in the respondent-organization, the appellant will be accommodated in a suitable post.

¶22

Even before the order could be passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the respondents, by their order dated 13.08.2007, have appointed the complainant as a Binder with retrospective effect and he was also given all monetary and service benefits.

¶23

We have carefully perused the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court.

¶24

The learned Single Judge had rejected the writ petition filed by the petitioner. It is only in the Writ Appeal, since a statement had

¶25

Cont.Case (C).No.1795 of 2007-S - 3 -

¶26

been made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant that the post of Binder is not available in the respondent-organization, that an undertaking was given by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that if the post of Binder is not available, the appellant will be accommodated in a suitable post. Since the post of Binder is available in the respondent-organization, the respondent has passed an order, dated 13.8.2007, regularising the services of the petitioner/complainant as Binder with retrospective effect.

¶27

In our opinion, there is neither deliberate nor wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court, by the respondent. In that view of the matter, there is no need or necessity to proceed with this contempt petition. Accordingly, the proceedings are dropped.

¶28

In view of the orders passed in the contempt petition, the reliefs sought for in I.A.No.272 of 2008 need not be considered by this Court. Accordingly, the said application is closed.

¶29

Ordered accordingly.

¶30

H.L.Dattu Chief Justice

¶31

A.K.Basheer Judge

¶32

vku/-

S.Rajan v. a.S.Mohammed Sherif

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajan v. a.S.Mohammed Sherif

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Indus Vs M.Beena, District Collector, Ernakulam

M/S.Wipro Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Wipro Ltd.,Kochi,Rep.by Its Sr.Execu Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by Secy.(Taxes),Tvm.

Ajithkumar.T. Vs Vice Admiral Sunil K.Damle & Another

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Allied Cashew Industries Kollam

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Tvm. Vs Shri.B.Mohanachandran Nair, Mangad, Klm.