Disposed

P. Narayanan Namboodiri v. Mr. K.C.Vijayakumar

Kerala HC8 Oct 2012Con.Case(C)/830/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case arising from a writ petition regarding temple employee benefits, the High Court held that detailed fact adjudication regarding the petitioner's employment status and payable amount was necessary before proceeding, as these were not decided earlier. The court closed both the contempt case and the review petition.

What did the court decide?

Both the contempt case and review petition are closed pending detailed fact adjudication regarding employment status and payable amount.

P. Narayanan Namboodiri Vs Mr. K.C.Vijayakumar — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/16TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 830 of 2012 (S)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.5994/2011 DATED 02-11-2011

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

P. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI

¶9

S/O.SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 56 YEARS, PRIEST PRAYANGODE SIVA KSHETHRAM, KANNAPURAM, CHUNDA P.O.MOTTAMMAL, (VIA) CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI SRI.S.P.SURESH KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. MR. K.C.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶13

(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)

¶14

COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶15

ERANHIPALAM P.O., HOUSEFED COMPLEX, CALICUT-673006.

¶16

2. MR.P.MADHAVAN NAMBOODIRI,

¶17

(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) MANAGER, NADUVIL MADAM DEVASWOM, TRUSTEE OFFICE PAZHAYA NADAKKAV, THEKKEMADAM ROAD THRISSUR-680001.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, SC,A MALABAR DEVASWOM R2 BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.G.BABITHA

¶19

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-10-2012, ALONG WITH RP. 690/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

tss

COC. NO.830/2012

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶24

A1:- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 2.11.2011 IN WPC. NO.5994/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶25

A2:- COPY OF WP9C) 13404/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶26

A3:- COPY OF COMMUNICATION DTD. 22.12.2011 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE COMMISSIONER , MALABAR DEVASWOM .

¶27

A4:- COPY OF ORDER DTD. 15.4.2005 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

A5:- COPY OF THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER THALASSERY DTD. 26.6.2009.

¶29

A6:- COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF STATEMENT SHOWING THE SALARY OF TEMPLE SERVANTS RENDERED FROM 1.7.2003.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶31

R1(a):- COPY OF LETTER DTD. 13.12.2011 ADDRESSED TO THE MANAGER OF NADUVIL MADOM DEVASWOM.

¶32

R1(b):- COPY OF LETTER DT.D 13.12.2011 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶33

R1(c):- COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 19.1.2012 OF THE DTD. 28.10.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶34

R1(d):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 28.10.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶35

R1(e):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 3.12.2011 OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶36

R1(f):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11.07.2012 OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER , MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶37

R1(g):- COPY OF ORDER DTD. 21.10.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶38

R2(a):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD DTD. 21.10.2011.

¶39

tss

¶40

COC. NO.830/2012

¶41

R2(b):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER ON 17.12.2004. R2(c):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 7.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶42

R2(d):- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.

¶43

R2(e):- COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 22.12.2011.

¶44

R2(f):- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.

¶45

R2 (g):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17.7.09 OF THE THEN MANAGER TO THE COMMISSIONER.

¶46

R2(h):- COPY OF THE VOUCHER FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 2012.

¶47

R2(i):- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASS BOOK.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶52

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C)No. 830 OF 2012 &

¶53

R.P.No. 690 OF 2012

¶54

Dated this the 8^th October, 2012

¶55

J U D G M E N T

¶56

The Contempt case has been filed by the writ petitioner alleging violation of the judgment dated 02.11.2011 involving an offence of contempt. The Review Petition is filed by the concerned respondent seeking to have the matter re-considered, for the reasons stated therein.

¶57

In the course of pendency of the above proceedings,

¶58

various affidavits, memos and such other proceedings came to be filed. The case, as projected by the writ petitioner is that, he was entitled to the benefits to the extent as stated in the writ petition, which however was not released, which hence is stated as contumacious, as the verdict passed by this Court has been

¶59

given only scant regards. The stand of the respondent/contemnor, who happens to be the review petitioner,

¶60

¶61

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C)No. 830 OF 2012 & R.P.No. 690 OF 2012

¶62

is that the writ petitioner was not a regular employee at all and as such, he is not justified in seeking for the pay of regular employees; however adding that every step has been taken to see that the eligible extent payable to the petitioner is released.

¶63

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Board as

¶64

well.

¶65

The fact remains that no proper counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition from the part of the concerned respondent, despite completion of service. But, it also remains a

¶66

fact that the status of the petitioner, whether he was a temporary or regular employee or what was the actual quantum payable to the petitioner, was not decided by this Court in the writ petition. This being the position, this Court finds that a detailed fact adjudication is necessary before proceeding with any further action in the contempt case, as to whether any contumacious act was there on the part of the respondent, involving an offence punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶67

In the above circumstance, this Court is of the view that

¶68

¶69

CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (C)No. 830 OF 2012 & R.P.No. 690 OF 2012

¶70

it is open for the petitioner to obtain the due amount payable by the respondents to the extent it is admitted from their side and if any further claim is there, it is still open to the petitioner to approach this Court by raising appropriate pleadings and proceedings in support of the claim; also projecting the status of the petitioner and the actual extent of the amount payable to him.

¶71

With the above observations, both the proceedings are closed.

¶72

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶73

P. Narayanan Namboodiri v. Mr. K.C.Vijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Narayanan Namboodiri v. Mr. K.C.Vijayakumar

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

Smt.Binu M.R. Vs Simi G.

N.Natarajan Vs the District Educational Officer

E.B.Byju Vs the State of Kerala

Pratheeksha Bhavan English Medium School Vs State of Kerala and 2 Others

P.K. Sasikumar Vs State of Kerala

A.M.Mohammed Jelil Vs State of Kerala