Dismissed

Arul v. Unnikrishnanp.G.

Kerala HC16 Aug 2018Con.Case(C)/1550/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt of court case, the Division Bench held that the transfer of the appellant from Kollam to Adimali did not violate the prior judgment because the earlier order's undertakings had worked out upon his retention at Kollam until the last general transfer. The case was closed.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case was closed; no violation of the earlier judgment was found.

Arul Vs Unnikrishnanp.G. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶6

THURSDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶7

Con.Case(C).No. 1550 of 2018 IN WA. 586/2017

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.586/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

DATED 24-03-2017

¶10

PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

¶11

ARUL

¶12

AGED 51 YEARS SUB ENGINEER (CIVIL), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN WA:

¶15

1 UNNIKRISHNAN P.G.AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME (NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER), SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695005.

¶16

2 AUGUSTINE THOMAS

¶17

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME (NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695005.

¶18

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.08.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

HRISHIKESH ROY, C.J. & A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶20

-----------------------------------------------------Cont. Case(C).No.1550 of 2018 -----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 16^th day of August, 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Hrishikesh Roy, C.J.

¶23

The contempt of court case is preferred alleging violation of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment of the Division Bench, by the respondents. Through the said judgment, after taking note of the transfer to which the petitioner was subjected to in the year 2017, this Court had directed that it would be in the fitness of things to permit the petitioner to continue in Kollam, where he had been posted, prior to the impugned transfer. It was also made clear that his case should be considered in the annual general transfer by the authorities and if vacancies are available in nearby locations, he should be adjusted, subject to the post being available and he is being entitled thereto.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the said judgment, the petitioner was allowed to stay in Kollam but he was unfairly directed to move to another location in the subsequent general transfer, by which he has now been posted to Adimali.

¶25

Despite the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present transfer to Adimali is contrary to the directions in Annexure A1 judgment, we find that the directions in the said judgment may not be so interpreted as obliging the respondents, to allow the petitioner to continue at Kollam, for the rest of his tenure with the KSEB. We find that the present

¶26

COC.1550/18

¶27

¶28

transfer directed in respect of the petitioner to Adimali, cannot be said to be in breach of the directions in Annexure A1 judgment, which according to us, had worked itself out, consequent to the retention of the petitioner at Kollam, till the last general transfer.

¶29

Accordingly, we find that there is no contempt on the part of the respondents and the case is accordingly closed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the present transfer, in appropriate proceedings, if he

¶30

is so advised.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

HRISHIKESH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

kkb.

COC.1550/18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶41

ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.586/2017 DT.24.03.2017.

¶42

ANNEXURE A2 : A TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF TRANSFER DT.30.07.2018.

¶43

ANNEXURE A3 : A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF ORDER DT.01.03.2018.

¶44

/TRUE COPY/

Arul v. Unnikrishnanp.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arul v. Unnikrishnanp.G.

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

Ashraf A.K Vs Byju

University of Kerala and Others Vs Shereef and Others

University of Kerala Vs Vinay K

Suo Motu Vs Sri.Biju Antony Aloor @ B.a.Aloor

Bbiju Antony Aloor @ B S Aloor Vs the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam

Secretary Mudlim Educational Trust for Coastal Area Vs Malavika Babu