Court dismissed a contempt petition alleging delay in accommodating a petitioner as postman. Held that specific vacancy timing does not alter the substantive direction, closing the case with liberty to seek clarification in the original petition.
Contempt petition closed; liberty granted to petitioner to seek clarification in original petition.
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
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939
Con.Case(C).No. 104 of 2018 IN OPCAT. 1681/2011 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP (CAT) 1681/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18-07-2017
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS
T.S. JOY AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.T P SOURU, GDSMD, EDAVOOR, ALUVA DIVISION, RESIDING AT 'THELAKKAD'EDAVOOR P O, KOOVAPADY VIA, PIN 683544.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.A.SHAFIK
SMT.S.LAKSHMY
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. &
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
Contempt of Court Case No.104 of 2018
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, C.J.
This petition is filed alleging disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment in O.P.(CAT) No.1681 of 2011 which was disposed of by the Division Bench directing that the petitioner herein be accommodated as Postman in the existing vacancy (if any) or in the next arising vacancy, including in the direct recruitment quota by earmarking one for the purpose of giving effect to the judgment.
Contempt of Court Case No.104 of 2018
-2-
vacancy which arose during the year 2016-17.
vacancies existing prior to the year 2016-17, according to us, since the direction only recognizes the situation of the petitioner to be accommodated against a vacancy prospectively—whether he is accommodated against an earlier vacancy or a vacancy which arose in the year 2016-17, hardly makes any difference for him.
Therefore, we close this contempt petition with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate clarification in the original petition itself.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
kns/-
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Contempt of Court Case No.104 of 2018 -3-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's accommodation against a specific vacancy amounts to wilful disobedience of previous directions.
Whether the delay in accommodation changes the substance of the earlier court order.
Whether the contempt petition should be closed or clarified.
T.S. JOY
MRS. SARADA SAMPATH
MR.K.K.DAVIS
ANTONY DOMINIC
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
