Disposed

Jessy v. Cherian v P.Ushadevi

Kerala HC28 Oct 2016Con.Case(C)/1846/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Contempt of Court case filed for alleged non-compliance of an order directing a District Educational Officer to grant appointment approval. The court found the substantive direction complied with via an order dated 21.10.2016, thereby closing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed; petitioner granted liberty to apply to reopen if there is undue delay in disbursement.

Jessy v. Cherian Vs P.Ushadevi — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1846 of 2016 (S)

¶6

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

¶7

JUDGMENT DATED 30-06-2016 IN WP(C) 23818/2013

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

JESSY V. CHERIAN, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. GEORGE THOMAS, FLAT NO.1A, TROPICANA ZION, RAILWAY STATION P.O., THIRUVALLA (HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL SCIENCE), ST.JOHN'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ERAVIPEROOR, THIRUVALLA).

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.4 IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶12

P.USHADEVI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA-689 101.

¶13

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

msv/

¶16

Con.Case(C).No. 1846 of 2016 (S)

¶17

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

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE

¶20

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.30.6.2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO.23818/2013 (B).

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE:

¶22

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

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

==================

C.O.C.No.1846 of 2016

¶30

==================

¶31

Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2016 J U D G M E N T

¶32

Heard Sri.S.Subhash Chand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶33

The above Contempt of Court case has been instituted by the writ petitioner in W.P.(C).No.23818/2013 alleging noncompliance of the directions and orders issued by this Court in Anx.1 judgment dated 30.6.2016 in the said W.P.(C). When the matter had come up on 20.10.2016, the learned Government Senior Pleader appearing for the respondent Officer (District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla) had submitted on the basis of the instructions from that officer that the directions issued by this Court as per Anx.1 judgment directing the DEO to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A (Social Studies) in the aided school concerned with effect from 20.9.2010 will be complied with, within 2 to 3 days and orders in this regard will be issued as expeditiously as possible, etc. Further, it was also submitted on behalf of the respondent that some more time is required for the authorities concerned to ensure the disbursal of the consequential

¶34

c.O.C.1846/16 - : 2 :-

¶35

monetary benefits to the petitioner, etc.

¶36

Now the respondent has filed an affidavit dated 25.10.2016 stating in para 3 thereof that the direction in Anx.1 judgment to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 20.9.2010 has been complied with by formal issuance of order No.B5/1774/13 dated 21.20.2016. A copy of the said order has also been made available by the learned Senior Government Pleader for the perusal of this Court. Further it is stated in the said affidavit that a lot of formalities have to be completed before disbursal of consequential benefits flowing from the approval of the appointment of the petitioner and some more time is required in that regard. The order dated 21.10.2016 as referred to above, has clearly indicated that direction has been issued to the Headmaster of the aided school concerned to draw and disburse the eligible amount due to the petitioner within a week. The learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondent assures that as soon as the arrears of salary bills are submitted by the headmaster of the aided school concerned, the educational authorities would process the same with all expedition and will take necessary steps to disburse the amounts due to the petitioner without any further delay. The said submission made on behalf of the respondent is

¶37

c.O.C.1846/16 - : 3 :-

¶38

recorded. The learned Senior Govt. Pleader will ensure that a copy of the abovesaid order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the respondent DEO will be made available to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶39

Since the judgment has been substantially complied with by the respondent, all what remains is further follow up action to be taken initially by the headmaster of the aided school concerned, this petition need not be kept pending and it is ordered that the headmaster of the aided school concerned will ensure that the arrears of the salary bills due to the petitioner are prepared and submitted before the respondent DEO, without any further delay, at any rate, within the time limit already stipulated in the order dated 21.10.2016 and upon receipt of the salary bill, the respondent DEO should ensure that the amounts due to the petitioner are disbursed to her immediately thereafter, without any further delay. In the light of these aspects, this Contempt of Court Case (Civil) stands closed with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before this Court to reopen these proceedings, if there is any undue delay in complying with the directions.

¶40

sdk+

¶41

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶42

///True Copy///

¶43

P.S. to Judge

¶44

c.O.C.1846/16 - : 4 :-

Jessy v. Cherian v P.Ushadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jessy v. Cherian v P.Ushadevi

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

Manikandan v. Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterpirses Ltd.

Auto Gas Energy India Limited Vs Union of India

Dincy Davis Vs the State of Kerala

Thayath Parakke Mariyam Vs the District Collector, Kannur

T.Rakhesh Vs C.P.Ramaraja Prema Prasad

Sebastian Vs the Sub Registrar