In a contempt case, the High Court of Kerala clarified that a subsequent suspension order did not violate prior court orders. The court held the petitioner entitled to service benefits from the date of the earlier order until the second suspension.
Case closed. Petitioner entitled to benefits from the date of the Annexure A6 order till the second suspension date.
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 V.GIRI
TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 25 of 2009(S) ----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20740/2008 Dated 30/07/2008 ....................
PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER:
K.I.ANEY, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PERUMATTY, PALAKKADU, RESIDING AT VETTASSERIL, PERINGALA, KAYAMKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R SMT.LAKSHMI RANI
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
V.GIRI, J
C.O.C.25/2009
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr.C.Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. I have perused the affidavit filed by the respondents. I am not in a position to say that there is violation of the orders passed by this Court in the light of AnnexureA6 order which is same as Annexure-R1(a). Since I have reserved the right of the Government to suspend the petitioner, if necessary by passing a fresh order, the suspension effected as per the subsequent order passed on 3.1.2009 cannot be considered as one in contravention of the orders passed by this Court. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the said order. Suffice it to say that the petitioner should be treated as having been in service from the date of AnnexureA6 order till the date on which he was suspended for the second time as per order dated 3.1.2009, and shall be entitled to all such benefits as accruing therefrom. Subject to the right of the petitioner to
C.O.C.25/2009
2
take steps in relation to the fresh order of suspension,
Contempt of Court case is closed.
V.GIRI, Judge
mrcs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suspension of the petitioner constitutes a violation of the court's previous order regarding service continuity?
K.I.Aney
Tinku Biswal
K.K.Ramakrishnan
V. Giri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
