Disposed

N.R.Vijayan v. E.Prakash

Kerala HC14 Oct 2010Con.Case(C)/855/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case arising from the refusal to grant pensionary benefits after a single judge directed reconsideration under Rule 39, the Court held that the Government followed the direction to consider eligibility. Since no positive declaration was directed, the petitioner must challenge the refusal via appropriate proceedings, leading the Court to close the contempt case without prejudice to th

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue appropriate proceedings to challenge the non-entitlement order.

N.R.Vijayan Vs E.Prakash — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932

¶4

Con.Case(C).No. 855 of 2010 ----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26799/2003 Dated 25/08/2008

¶5

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶6

¶7

N.R. VIJAYAN, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 63 YEARS, NATTUVETTY HOUSE, KIZHUPPULLIKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 704.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶10

-----------------------------------E.PRAKASH,(FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION(F) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVASIS.

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶14

¶15

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 855 of 2010

¶16

- - - - Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2010

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶19

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26799 of 2003 is before this Court alleging contumacious act on the part of the respondent/contemnor, stating that the direction given by the learned Single Judge as per judgment dated 25.08.2008 in the writ petition has not been complied with. Though the respondent has already passed an order, it is stated as not in conformity with the directions given by the learned Single Judge.

¶20

Obviously, the grievance of the petitioner before

¶21

the learned Single Judge was that he was made to continue in service for nearly 21 years, without regularisation and when the question of regularisation was being considered by the Government, he attained the age of superannuation and came out from the service on 30.09.2001. The benefit of regularisation was denied placing reliance on G.O.(P)

¶22

COC No. 855 of 2010

¶23

-:2:-

¶24

No.39/2002/P&ARD dated 26.08.2002. When it was challenged, seeking to grant pensionary benefits, a verdict was passed by the learned Single Judge directing the matter to be considered in a 'limited angle' with reference to Rule 39 of Part II K.S. & S.S.R, so as to make the petitioner eligible to have the pensionary benefits. It was accordingly, that the matter was considered and an order was passed by the Government (produced and marked as Annexure IV) holding that the petitioner was not entitled to have any benefit; which in turn forms the basis for the contempt petition stating that it is contrary to the mandate given by the learned Single Judge.

¶25

The respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the matter was considered, of course in compliance with the directions given by this Court. After ascertaining the factual and legal position, it was observed that the case of the petitioner did not come within the purview of Rule 39 of Part II K.S. & S.S.R (Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the counter affidavit) and it was accordingly, that Annexure IV order was passed. It is also contended that there is absolutely no wilful default or lapse on

¶26

COC No. 855 of 2010

¶27

-:3:-

¶28

the part of the respondent in any manner. However, with regard

¶29

to the delay in passing the orders, regrets and apologies have been tendered in the affidavit.

¶30

Going by the materials on record, it is revealed

¶31

that the direction given by the learned Single Judge was to have the matter considered with reference to Rule 39 of Part II K.S. & S.S.R and no positive declaration or direction was given. In the last paragraph of the judgment, it was stated as follows:

¶32

“ If the Government decides to regularize the service of the petitioner for the purpose of granting him pensionary benefits, the pensionary benefits shall be fixed and disbursed to him within a period of three months from the date of which revised orders are passed on Ext.P10. ”

¶33

It was pursuant to the above direction, that the matter was considered by the Government and a finding was arrived at holding that the petitioner was not entitled to have the benefit of Rule 39 of Part II K.S. & S.S.R. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the said order, i.e. Annexure IV, the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the same by way of appropriate proceedings and obtain a positive declaration and relief to have

¶34

COC No. 855 of 2010

¶35

-:4:-

¶36

the pensionary benefits granted in favour of him; if eligible in accordance with law.

¶37

In the above circumstances, this Court finds that no further steps are required to be pursued in the contempt matter. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed, however, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings, so as to have the grievance redressed as mentioned above.

¶38

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice.

¶39

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge.

¶40

ttb

¶41

COC No. 855 of 2010

¶42

-:5:-

N.R.Vijayan v. E.Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.R.Vijayan v. E.Prakash

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

Dr. R.Pushpakumari Vs Dr.Manomohanan & Another

K.R.Mohanan Vs Narayanankutty @ Haridas

Shimna.v.S and Others Vs Ajitha Kumary.K.S and Others

Sreekumar S Vs Dr.M.K.Jeevan

Sumangala.K, Vs Balakrishnan

A.D.Jayaprakash & Another Vs Union of India & Others