Petitioner sought additional benefits and a rehearing of a compliance matter concluded years prior in a contempt proceeding. The court dismissed the writ petition as a maintainable cause of action barred by limitation and lack of fitness for intervention.
Interference declined and writ petition dismissed.
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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/10TH KARTHIKA 1934
WP(C).No. 18229 of 2011 (C)
PETITIONER:
M.ABDUL JABBAR,(RETIRED ASSISTANT ACCOUNTANT,IQBAL COLLEGE,PERINGAMMALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), R/AT KALLUVILA, FATHIMA MANZIL, PALAMKONAM, PERINKULAM PO ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.C.THOMAS SRI.ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP,BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE MANGER, IQBAL COLLEGE, PERINGAMALA-695563.
4. THE PRINCIPAL, IQBAL COLLEGE, PERINGAMALA-695563.
R3,R4 BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LOUSY R5 ADV. SRI. ROJO JOSEPH THURUTHIPARA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 18229 of 2011 (C)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2005, WHICH DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO GET SALARY AND ALLOWANCES FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN 30.6.1984 TO 4.3.1997.
P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.12.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR GETTING ARREARS.
P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.12.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENTS FOR GETTING ARREARS.
P6: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 20.11.2010 ISSUED FROM SHRI. UTHRAAM THIRUNAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R2(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE BILLS COUNTERSIGNED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 30.6.1984 TO 4.3.1997.
// TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
Scl.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
W.P.(C). No. 18229 of 2011
Dated this the 1st day of November, 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance
that, the benefits flowing from Ext.P2 judgment have not been fully extended to the petitioner.
W.P.C. No. 18229 of 2011 -2-
complied with, the petitioner filed Con.Case (C) No.1233/2006. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 29.08.2008, compliance was reported by the learned Government Pleader, also rendering apology for delay. It was accordingly, that the contempt matter was closed as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 29.8.2008. It appears that, the petitioner was having some subsisting grievance to the effect that, some of the benefits
which ought to have been extended to the petitioner were not given and hence he wanted to reopen the contempt matter by filing I.A.No.698/2010. This however came to be closed on 23.6.2011, observing that, if any further grievance was there, it could be sought to be agitated by filing a writ petition and thus this writ petition.
W.P.C. No. 18229 of 2011 -3-
hundred and six only) has already been received by the petitioner. It is also added in paragraph'5' that, claim in respect of the 'earned leave surrender', the necessary proceedings had to be forwarded by the Manager with regard to the actuals and that, no such proceedings or request was never made by the authorities. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4 pointing out the sequence of events, contending that, by virtue of the order passed by the Management and also the verdict passed by this Court, the petitioner was not ordered to be given all the benefits which otherwise could have been made available to him, had he be continued in service and that the period in which he was kept out of service has been treated as 'on duty'. The following benefits were released to the petitioner as stated in paragraph '3', which is extracted below:
W.P.C. No. 18229 of 2011
-4-
W.P.C. No. 18229 of 2011 -5-
The claim of the petitioner in respect of the benefits by way of Leave Surrender, Half Pay Leave etc., has been sought to be rebutted stating that, it can only be in respect of actuals and that nothing further survives to be considered by this Court in the present proceeding.
W.P.C. No. 18229 of 2011 -6-
only be with reference to the verdict passed by this Court as per Ext.P2 which has become final. If the direction given by this Court was not fully complied with, the remedy was to file a Contempt of Court Cas;, which course was of course pursued by the petitioner. On reporting compliance, the contempt matter came to be closed as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 29.8.2008. If there was any factual mistake, on the submission made from the
part of the learned Government Pleader as to the compliance reported was wrong, it was open for the petitioner to have filed a review or even a petition to reopen the contempt matter 'within a reasonable time'. Admittedly, the petitioner approached this Court again only more than two years thereafter and now, by way of present writ petition. It is settled law that, a cause of action in respect of the offence involving Contempt of Court Act is to be pursued subject to the limitation as prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act; the scope of which has been explained by a Full Bench of this Court as reported in
Damodaran v. Cherkalam Abdulla (2007 (2) KLT 171)
W.P.C. No. 18229 of 2011
-7-
that, the petitioner could not have sought to reopen the contempt matter which was closed as early as on 29.8.2008 by filing any I.A in the year 2010 or by causing the grievance to the reconsidered by way of the present writ petition. The order passed in I.A.No.698/2010 in CCC 1233/06 as to the course suggested by way of writ petition is to be read and understood as having effect, only if fresh writ petition is actually maintainable.
This Court does not find it as a fit case to entertain the relief sought for. Accordingly, interference is declined and writ petition is dismissed.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Kp/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should entertain a writ petition filed after the limitation period for contempt proceedings to reopen a compliance matter.
Whether the petitioner was motivated to seek additional benefits beyond the final judgment already delivered.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Damodaran v. Cherkalam AbdullaDistinguished¶65
Damodaran v. Cherkalam Abdulla (2007 (2) KLT 171)
M. Abdul Jabbar
The State of Kerala
The Director of Collegiate Education
The Manager, Iqbal College
The Principal, Iqbal College
The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
