In this contempt of court case, the petitioner alleged non-compliance of a prior judgment direction. The court held that the substantive dispute regarding the correctness of the resultant order exceeded the permissible scope of a contempt proceeding and closed the case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 949 of 2008(S) -----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.11029/2000 Dated 19/06/2007 ....................
PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER
P.T.SIMON, ASST.ENGINEER (CIVIL), ENG.DEPT, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT (RETIRED), AGED ABOUT 63, S/O.P.L.THOMAS, PORUTHOOR PANOKARAN HOUSE, MARAR ROAD, P.O.VELAPPAYA, TRICHUR-680596.
BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. FOR R1
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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.
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.
P.T.SIMON
DR.T.K.NARAYANAN
P.G.THOMAS
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
