Disposed

K.Sivaprasad v. Sri.K.G.Mohanlal

Kerala HC3 Dec 2013Con.Case(C)/1146/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed three contempt of court cases arising from non-implementation of directions issued in a writ petition regarding empanelled KSRTC drivers' regularisation. The Court held that a new Government order of 21.11.2013 could not be challenged via contempt proceedings. Instead, the petitioners were directed to file an appropriate writ petition to impugned the order.

What did the court decide?

The contempt cases were closed without prejudice to the petitioners' right to challenge the Government order by filing an appropriate writ petition under Article 226.

K.Sivaprasad Vs Sri.K.G.Mohanlal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1146 of 2013 (S)

¶6

-----------------------------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 10291/2013 DATED 10-04-2013) --------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WP(C) :

¶8

K.SIVAPRASAD,AGED 50 YEARS,S/O.KOCHUKRISHNAN, EMPANELLED DRIVER, KSRTC, CHATHANOOR DEPOT, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE WP(C) :

¶11

SRI.K.G.MOHANLAL, (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS), MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 023

¶12

BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-12-2013,ALONG WITH COC.NO.1219 OF 2013 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

COC.NO.1146/2013

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.10291/13 DATED 10/4/2013 ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4/6/2013 IN W.A.NO.806 OF 2013.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEX R1(A)	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/3/2013 IN WP(C)NO.8035/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEX R1(B)	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4/6/2013 IN W.A.NO.803/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEX R1(C)	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/6/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT
ANNEX R1(D)	COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.105/2013/TRAN DATED 21/11/2013 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
ANNEX R1(E)	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PL 16/014915/12 DATED 21/11/2013 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶25

Cont. Case (C) Nos.1146, 1219, 1220, 1222 & 1347 of 2013

¶26

Dated this the 3^rd day of December, 2013

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The judgment in Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala

¶29

[2013 (2) KLT 258] has been affirmed by the Division Bench of

¶30

this Court in W.A.No.803/2013 and connected cases. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners herein were accordingly disposed of directing the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation to consider the question of their regularisation in service. It was further directed that a minimum of 120 duty a year for all the 10 years shall not be insisted for regularisation of empanelled employees.

¶31

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation relies on yet another order passed by the Government on 21.11.2013 (with retrospective effect from 21.12.2011) and also consequential orders passed in respect of each of the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the order dated 21.11.2013 cannot be said to be clarificatory in as much as a new condition of minimum 120 days duty per year has been introduced for the

¶32

¶33

COC.Nos.1146/2013 etc.

¶34

first time. The petitioners further contend that no retrospective effect can at any rate be given effect to from 21.12.2011 by an order passed as late as on 21.11.2013 while deciding the eligibility for regularisation.

¶35

I find force in this submission even though the remedy of the petitioners is not to pursue the contempt of court case. It is for the petitioners to impugn the order dated 21.11.2013 of the Government and also the consequential orders passed in respect of each of them in appropriate writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

The Contempt Cases are accordingly closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners as above.

¶37

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶38

nj.

K.Sivaprasad v. Sri.K.G.Mohanlal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sivaprasad v. Sri.K.G.Mohanlal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paul T.Kurian Vs Shanavas

Navas P.H Vs State of Kerala

Viswanathan K Vs Government of Kerala

The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited Vs M/S.Ardeshir B.Cursetjee & Sons Ltd.

Sheeja Vs the Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore

M.Hidayath Vs Chief Manager (Authorised Officer)