Disposed

O. Reju Wilson v. S. Shajahan

Kerala HC4 Jul 2018Con.Case(C)/1250/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short contempt order addressed allegations of non-compliance with a previous judgment directing the Government of Kerala to consider a petitioner's pension claim. The court extended the deadline for the respondent to complete the required exercise to 10.08.2018.

What did the court decide?

Time was granted to the respondent to complete the exercise as directed in the previous judgment on or before 10.08.2018. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the court for a re-hearing if t

O. Reju Wilson Vs S. Shajahan — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1250 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 37732/2016 of THIS HON'BLE COURT, DATED 03-04-2017.

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN WP(C):-

¶9

O.RIJI WILSON, W/O.BRIGHT K.J., AGE 36 YEARS, LPSA, ST.THOMAS UP SCHOOL, PARANNUR, KUNNAMKULAM, RESIDING AT KOLLANNUR HOUSE, MATTOM P.O., THRISSUR - 680 602.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC:

¶12

S.SHAJAHAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.DHANIL

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Con.Case(C).No. 1250 of 2018

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)'ANNEXURES

¶19

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 12.6.2016 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶20

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.NO.4562/1972 DATED 28.6.1973 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶21

ANENXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.20369/2006 DATED 20.6.2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶22

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(RT) NO.485/08/G.EDN DATED 25.1.2008.

¶23

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 21.3.2014 IN W.A.NO.1674/2008.

¶24

ANNEXURE A6 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.37732/2016 DATED 3.4.2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶25

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF TE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 28.12.2017.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)'ANNEXURES - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

TS 07.07.2018

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶31

...........................................

¶32

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1250 of 2018 (S)

¶33

.......................................

¶34

Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2018

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

This contempt of court case has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the directions in the judgment dated 03.04.2017 in W.P.(C) No.37732 of 2016 has not been complied with. The specific directions in the said judgment is available in paragraph No.7 thereof, which is

¶37

extracted below:

¶38

7. In such circumstances, I quash Ext.P14 order, to the extent to which the petitioner's request for approval from 12.06.2006 until 01.06.2011 has been denied, but without considering its merits in detail, so as to pave way for a fresh consideration at the hands of the competent Secretary of the Government of Kerala. The competent Secretary of the Government of Kerala shall consider the claim of the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard both to the petitioner and to the fifth respondent-Manager of the school adverting to Exts.P3, P4, P12 and P13 judgments of this Court as well as Ext.P5 Government Order and Ext.P6

¶39

¶40

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1250 of 2018 (S)

¶41

proceedings of the AEO, Kunnamkulam, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

The petitioner alleges that even though this Court had directed the respondent to complete the exercise as afore directed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of that judgment, no orders have been issued even as of now.

¶43

The learned Government Pleader on instructions

¶44

submits that even though all steps have been taken to comply with the directions contained in the judgment, formal orders could not be issued for certain unavoidable reasons. He says unequivocally that the order as directed by this Court in the judgment will be issued not later than one month from today.

¶45

Taking note of the afore-submissions and since it has been made responsibly by an officer of this Court, I deem it appropriate to close this Contempt of Court Case granting time to the respondent to complete the exercise as directed in the afore-extracted portion of the judgment on or before 10.08.2018. The petitioner is left liberty to

¶46

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1250 of 2018 (S)

¶47

¶48

approach this Court with an application for re-hearing of

¶49

this contempt of court case, if these directions are also not complied with by the respondent.

¶50

With the above directions, this Contempt Case (Civil)

¶51

is closed.

¶52

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶53

AMV/05/07/2018

O. Reju Wilson v. S. Shajahan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O. Reju Wilson v. S. Shajahan

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

Santhamma Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

K.Ravindranathan Vs the Additional Excise Commissioner

Sri.Kunjiraman Nambiar Vs State of Kerala

Tomy Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Carrier Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd., (Formerly Carrier Aircon Ltd) Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S. Mathruka Relators [P] Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer