Disposed
V.P.Sarojini v. Niveditha P.Haran and Others
Kerala HCCon.Case(C)/91/2011
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932
Con.Case(C).No. 91 of 2011(S)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP (C):
------------------------------------------------------
V.P.SAROJINI, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O. KORAN, PART-TIME SPEEPER, KUTTIPPURAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KUTTIPPURAM (PO), TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST.
BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP (C):
------------------------------------------------------------
1. NIVEDITHA P.HARAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. K.R. MURALEEDHARAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. A. SAKEER HUSSAIN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS THE THASILDAR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101.
4. M.C.MOHAN DAS IAS, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505.
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SMT
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
........................................... CONT.CASE NO.91 OF 2011
............................................ DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF MARCH, 2011
JUDGMENT
The allegation in the petition is of disobedience of Annexure I order. The prayer sought was to stay the termination of the petitioner and to direct the respondents to pay regular scale of pay to the petitioner including revised pay and allowances implemented by 2004 Pay Revision. By order dated 17.12.2009, interim order as prayed for was granted.
coc 91/2011
2
any disobedience of the interim order warranting proceedings to be initiated under the Contempt of Court Act.
The contempt case is closed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
lgk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether non-payment of arrears for the past period constitutes disobedience of an interim order warranting contempt proceedings.
V.P.Sarojini
Niveditha P.Haran
K.R. Muraleedharan
A. Sakeer Hussain
M.C.Mohan Das
Antony Dominic
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court