Dismissed

Sreedevi, v. Smt.v.a.Sheeja

Kerala HC12 Jun 2019Con.Case(C)/728/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition by a sweeper against the Cochin Devaswom Board. Court notes notional appointment was granted but promotion denied due to lack of test clearance. Contempt case closed as compliance achieved on appointment; right to challenge promotion order preserved.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to impugn the order denying promotion in appropriate proceedings.

Sreedevi, Vs Smt.v.a.Sheeja — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2019)

¶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

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

Con.Case(C).No. 728 of 2019 IN WP(C). 32340/2011

¶8

ARISING FROM THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.9.2018 IN WP(C).NO.32340/2011

¶9

PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER IN W.P(C):

¶10

SREEDEVI, SWEEPER, PUTHIYAKAVU TEMPLE, CHOVVARA DEVASWOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE W.P(C):

¶13

1 SMT.V.A.SHEEJA, AGED 53 YEARS (W/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR- 680020.

¶14

2 R.HARI AGED 54,

¶15

S/O.RAMAN EMBRANDIRI, EDAVATTIKKADU HOUSE, SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR- 680020.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

¶17

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

Con.Case(C).No. 728 of 2019

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Hrishikesh Roy, C.J.

¶22

Heard Sri.Mohan C.Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Sri.Ajith Krishnan, the learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶23

This Contempt case is based on the judgment dated 28.09.2018 in the W.P(C).No.32340 of 2011, whereunder, the Division Bench directed the Cochin Devaswom Board and the Devaswom Board Commissioner to retrospectively appoint the petitioner with effect from 22.03.2004, by granting her notional service benefit. Further direction was also issued to consider her promotion to the cadre of L.D.Clerk.

¶24

The affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Devaswom Board as well as the additional affidavit filed on 12.06.2019 would indicate that the petitioner was appointed under the Dying-in-harness Scheme in the Keezhedam Nampilly Temple of Puthiyedam Devaswom, under the Tripunithura Group. The Service Book of the petitioner is corrected to indicate that she has been appointed with effect from 22.03.2004. In so far as the further direction to consider her promotion to L.D.Clerk, it was found that the petitioner did not clear any written test or interview and therefore the promotion was declined.

¶25

¶26

Con.Case(C).No. 728 of 2019

¶27

While the denial of promotion is the current grievance of the petitioner, the same cannot be redressed in Contempt jurisdiction in as much as the direction of the Court was to only consider her claim for promotion. Since this was done, adequate compliance with the direction issued by this Court in the W.P(C).No.32340 of 2018 is seen in the present matter.

¶28

In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to close this Contempt case without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to impugn the order denying promotion, in an appropriate proceedings.

Sd/-

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶33

mns

¶34

¶35

Con.Case(C).No. 728 of 2019

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH RENDERED IN W.P. (C)NO.32340/2011 DATED 28.09.2018.

¶39

ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04.10.2018 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. DATED 18.12.2018 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ON 15.01.2019 ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶40

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT-R1(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER NO.M4.575/2003 DATED 17.12.2018 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT-R1(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER NO.M4.575/2003 DATED 18.5.2019 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT-R1(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER NBO.M4.575/2003 DATED 30.05.2019 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT-R1(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DEVASWOM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRIPUNITHURA DATED 7.6.2019 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT R1(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE FOR RS.1,79,611/- AND REPORT OF THE DEVASWOM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DATED 10.6.2019 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT R1(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SERVICE BOOK AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

P.A TO JUDGE

¶44

Con.Case(C).No. 728 of 2019 5

Sreedevi, v. Smt.v.a.Sheeja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreedevi, v. Smt.v.a.Sheeja

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

Susamma Luke Vs Corporation of Kollam

Mohammed Ajmal.K.N Vs the Transport Commissioner

Prasanth K., Vs Saju George

The Payappar Sree Dharma Sastha Advisory Committee Vs a.K.Joseph

Shwas Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vinayakumar. P. v.

State of Kerala Vs Smt.Vijayalakshmi Devi