Disposed

P.A. Basheer v. Smt. Tinku Biswal

Kerala HC24 Jan 2018Con.Case(C)/98/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a 2017 judgment ordering regularisation of petitioners herein. Accepting the respondent's plea, the court closed the case granting one month to issue final orders rather than initiating contempt action.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; respondent granted one month to issue final orders regarding regularisation. Petitioners at liberty to seek rehearing for non-compliance.

P.A. Basheer Vs Smt. Tinku Biswal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 4TH MAGHA, 1939

¶4

Con.Case(C).No. 98 of 2018

¶5

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

1 P.A. BASHEER, S/O. LATE ABDUL KHADER, AGED 65, H. R. WORKER, P. H. DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

2 V. D. MATHEW, S/O. LATE DEVASSY, AGED 64, WORKMAN (H. R. WORKER), P. H. DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

3 P. D. JOSEPH,S/O. P. D. DEVASSY, AGED 51, H. R. WORKER, P. H. DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D COUTH SRI.K.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.V.ANANDA SHENOY

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

1. SMT. TINKU BISWAL,(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCESDEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶13

2. SMT. SHYNA MOL,(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶14

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JESTIN MATHEW R2 BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-01-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

PBS

¶17

Con.Case(C).No. 98 of 2018

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶20

ANNEXURE A1	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/02/2017.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.06.2017.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.10.2017.

¶21

RESPONDENT' S ANNEXURE NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

PBS

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶26

Cont.Case (C)No.98 of 2018 in W.P.(C)No.19929 of 2008

¶27

Dated this the 24^th day of January, 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This case has been filed by the petitioners alleging that the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.19929 of 2008 dated 27.2.2017 has not yet been complied with.

¶30

In the judgment in question I had directed the second respondent herein to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation in the services of the Kerala Water Authority in terms of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority (1990 (2) KLT 673) . I had directed the said respondent to complete this exercise as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the certified copy of the judgment was delivered to the 2^nd respondent in the second week of March, 2017 and that in spite of the fact that more than 11 months have now elapsed

¶32

Cont.Case (C)No.98 of 2018 in W.P.(C)No.19929 of 2008

¶33

¶34

no action has been taken in terms of the judgment.

¶35

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Water Authority makes a dispassionate plea that no action be taken against the second respondent because, as per his instructions, action has already been taken in compliance with the judgment, albeit not within the time granted by this Court. He concedes that no application has been filed before this Court to enlarge the time fixed in the judgment but he pleads that this Court grant the respondent, as a last chance, another period of one month so as to complete the process and to issue appropriate orders.

¶36

I am certainly not happy with the way the second respondent has acted and generally in such circumstances, I would have been compelled to initiate action against her and to pursue further action under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act for non-compliance of the judgment. However, taking note of the fervent plea of the learned Standing Counsel

¶37

and accepting his submission that final orders in terms of the judgment will be issued not later than one month from the

¶38

Cont.Case (C)No.98 of 2018 in W.P.(C)No.19929 of 2008

¶39

¶40

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment I deem it appropriate to close this contempt case granting such time.

¶41

I thus close this contempt of court case recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent that final orders in terms of the judgment will be issued within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that if the respondent does not comply with the directions contained in the judgment, within the time granted herein, the petitioners would be at liberty to seek a re-hearing of this contempt of court case by making a proper application.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶44

skj

P.A. Basheer v. Smt. Tinku Biswal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.A. Basheer v. Smt. Tinku Biswal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Philomina and Others Vs the District Collector,Thrissur and Ors.

M. Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

Vivekanand Venkatram Cona Vs the District Collector

S.J.Adersh Vs Dr.B.Sreekumar

Central Reserve Police Force Pensioners Welfare Association Vs State of Kerala

Bijomon Thomas Vs State of Kerala