Review petitioner challenged an interim order in a pending writ petition concerning casual employment. The Court allowed the review petition, withdrew the interim order, and closed the associated contempt case without observing on the merits of the pending writ.
Interim order withdrawn; Review Petition Allowed; Contempt case closed.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/30TH POUSHA, 1937
R.P.No.46 of 2016 IN WP(C).38917/2015 (L)
[AGAINST THE ORDER IN W.P.(C).38917/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED 21-12-2015]
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/ RESPONDENTS IN WPC:-
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE.
RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONER IN WPC:
JAYASREE N.G., AGED 45 YEARS, D/O. NECHIKKADAN GOVINDAN, NECHIKKADAN HOUSE, KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DISRICT - 676 523.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-01-2016, ALONG WITH CONT.CASE (C) NO.12 OF 2016-S, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
K. Vinod Chandran, J
R.P.No.46 of 2016 in W.P.(C).No.38917 of 2015-L & Cont. Case (C) No.12 of 2016-S
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT/ORDER
The review petition has been filed against an interim order, on the ground that the petitioner was never permitted employment and, hence, there could be no question of continuation in the casual employment. The ground raised is that the petitioner, even as per Exhibit P1, contended to be
“unmarried woman” and hence the sponsorship by the Employment Officer was on a priority basis, based on G.O.(Rt) No.2826/04/Labour dated 29.10.2004.
RP.46 of 2016 & - 2 - CoC.12 of 2016-S
the interim order, the contempt case, complaining non-compliance of the interim order, is closed. It is made clear that this Court has not observed on the merits of the matter and has vacated the order only since the review petitioners submit that there was no
employment of the writ petitioner and hence no continuance.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/-
[ true copy ]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow the review petition challenging an interim order in a pending writ petition regarding casual employment.
The Director of Agriculture, Thiruvananthapuram
The Principal Agricultural Officer, District Agriculture Office, Civil Station, Malappuram
The Deputy Director of Agriculture, SED Garden Complex, Munderi, Malappuram District
The Employment Officer, Town Employment Exchange, Nilambur, Malappuram District
Jayasree N.G.
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
