Dismissed

P.Sivanarayanan v. Dr.K.Ellangovan

Kerala HC1 Dec 2014Con.Case(C)/1203/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition challenging non-compliance with a writ appeal order granting pension benefits, the Court held that as the second respondent in the original appeal was not a party to this contempt case and specific claim particulars were missing, it could not proceed. The case was closed, allowing the petitioner to approach the second respondent directly.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed without any order against the respondent.

P.Sivanarayanan Vs Dr.K.Ellangovan — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN

¶4

& THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶5

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶6

Con.Case(C).No. 1203 of 2014 (S)

¶7

WA 2005/2010 of THIS HONOURABLE COURT

¶8

PETITIONER :

¶9

-------------------

¶10

P.SIVANARAYANAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.M.KRISHNAN NAIR, LEPROSY INSPECTOR P.H.C.THRIKKADEERI, PALAKKAD RESIDING AT 6/369 SABARI NIVAS, MANALMANTHA, AMBIKAPURAM, PALAKKAD 678 011.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶12

RESPONDENT :

¶13

---------------------

¶14

DR.K.ELLANGOVAN, SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶15

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.I. DAVIS

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Con.Case(C).No. 1203 of 2014 (S)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶21

ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 23/9/2010 IN WPC NO. 4077/2008. ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 11/4/2014 IN WA NO. 2005/2010.

¶22

ANNEXURE III: COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 14/5/2014 TOGETHER WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.

¶23

ANNEXURE IV: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE MONTHLY SALARY AND INCREMENT OF THE 1ST APPELLANT

¶24

ANNEXURE V: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE MONTHLY SALARY AND INCREMENT OF THE 2ND APPELLANT.

¶25

ANNEXURE VI: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE MONTHLY SALARY AND INCREMENT OF THE 3RD APPELLANT.

¶26

ANNEXURE VII: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE MONTHLY SALARY AND INCREMENT OF THE 4TH APPELLANT.

¶27

ANNEXURE VIII: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE MONTHLY SALARY AND INCREMENT OF THE 5TH APPELLANT.

¶28

ANNEXURE IX: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE MONTHLY SALARY AND INCREMENT OF THE 6TH APPELLANT.

¶29

ANNEXURE X: COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE MONTHLY SALARY AND INCREMENT OF THE 7TH APPELLANT.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

Ashok Bhushan, Ag. C.J & A.M. Shaffique, J.

¶35

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1203 of 2014

¶36

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶37

Dated this, the 1^st day of December, 2014.

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

Shaffique, J.

¶40

Petitioner has approached this Court complaining about non-compliance with the directions issued by this Court in W.A. No. 2005/2010.

¶41

The writ appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court as per judgment dated 11.4.2014, issuing the following directions:

¶42

“18. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ appeal succeeds to the extent that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and condition no. 3 in paragraph 6 of Ext. P1 is liable to be quashed, resultantly directing that the provisional service rendered by the appellants shall be counted for all service benefits, including pension.

¶43

In the result, this writ appeal is allowed as ordered hereunder:

¶44

i. the impugned judgment is set aside.

¶45

ii. Condition No. 3 in paragraph 6 of Ext. P1 G.O (MS) No.275/06/H&FWD dated 29.12.2006 is quashed.

¶46

iii. It is declared that the provisional service rendered by each of the appellants shall be counted for all service benefits including pension.

¶47

iv. No costs.”

¶48

The contention raised by the petitioner is that

¶49

despite directions issued to treat the provisional service rendered by the petitioners to be counted for all service benefits, no specific order has been passed by the respondent and therefore the respondent has committed wilful contempt.

¶50

On a perusal of the judgment and after hearing learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Government Pleader, we are of the view that this is not an instance where wilful contempt has been committed by the respondent. The respondent is the Secretary to Government, Department of Health and Family Welfare. This Court, in the aforesaid judgment, had quashed condition no. 3 in paragraph 6 of Ext. P1 Government Order dated 29.12.2006. Ext. P1 was the Government Order issued by the respondent. When condition no. 6 had been deleted, definitely, the provisional service rendered by the appellant will have to be taken for giving service benefits. The complaint is that no action had been taken by the respondent to fix the pay and salary of the petitioner and the benefit of the judgment had not been extended to the respondent. Apparently, the service benefits have to be fixed by the Department, who is the 2^nd respondent in the writ appeal. He is not made as a party to this contempt case. Counsel for the petitioner submits that copy of Annexure III had been sent to the 2^nd respondent in the writ appeal as well, but no action had been taken in the matter.

¶51

What ever that might be, having regard to the fact that the 2^nd respondent in the writ appeal is not a party to the contempt petition and that apart particulars regarding the claim of each appellant have not been placed on record, we do not think that this Court can proceed against the respondent. It shall be open for the petitioner to approach the 2^nd respondent in the writ appeal in accordance with the directions issued by this Court and thereafter if there is no compliance, the petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings including moving contempt case. With the above observation, the contempt case is closed.

¶52

Sd/Ashok Bhushan, Ag. Chief Justice

¶53

Sd/A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

¶54

Tds/

P.Sivanarayanan v. Dr.K.Ellangovan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sivanarayanan v. Dr.K.Ellangovan

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

Percy Joseph Desmond Vs E.K.Bharat Bhushan

Dr.M.D.Joy Vs State of Kerala and Others

State of Kerala,Rep;by the Chief Secrty Vs M/S.Leena Augustine and Another

A.T.Premachandran Nair Vs the Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd.

E.a.Vavachan Vs State of Kerala

Prakash Vs the District Collector