Unnikrishnan.S v. Dr.Abdul Majeed.T.a
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court addressed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a prior 2015 judgment directing the University to fix workload and approve petitioner appointments with salary disbursement. The Government issued an order approving appointments but conditioned salary revision prospectively and credited arrears to Provident Fund with a lock-in. The Court held this constituted compliance in princ
What did the court decide?
Contempt of court case closed with liberty to petitioners to challenge the Government Order (Annexure A7) as separate proceedings if aggrieved.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/15TH ASWINA, 1938
Con.Case(C).No. 1520 of 2015 (S)
--------------------------------
JUDGMENT DATED 04-03-2015 IN WP(C) 15735/2010
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS IN THE WPC:
1. UNNIKRISHNAN S., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.A.N.SIVARAMAN NAIR ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MALAYALAM, ZAMORIN'S GURUVAYURAPPAN COLLEGE, CALICUT 673 014.
2. DR.RADHAKRISHNAN E., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, (LECTURER IN MALAYALAM),
- ZAMORIN'S GURAVAYURAPPAN COLLEGE, CALICUT-673 014. WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MALAYALAM LITERARY STUDIES, THUNCHATHEZHUTHACHAN MALAYALAM UNIVERSITY, VAKKAD P.O., THIRUR 676 502.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether crediting salary to Provident Fund with lock-in and prospective salary revision violates a court direction for disbursement of salary and arrears.
Whether a Government Order conditioning salary release alters the impugned court direction in contempt proceedings.
Whether the contempt petition should be closed allowing petitioners to challenge the specific Government Order separately.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Unnikrishnan S.
- petitioner
DR. Radhكرشنان E.
- petitioner
DR. Sreeranjeni G.
- petitioner
DR. Suneetha T.V.
- respondent
Secretary, Higher Education Department
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court