Dismissed

A.K.Anjana v. Smt.Saudamini

Kerala HC15 Feb 2021Con.Case(C)/1463/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt proceeding, the High Court held that the impugned order under challenge was substantially complied with regarding the petitioner's entitlement. The Court stayed further proceedings regarding specific salary arrears, leaving the matter to be agitated independently.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case was dismissed; the petitioner's remedy for salary arrears for the period 01.08.2008 to 14.07.2010 was left open for independent agitation.

A.K.Anjana Vs Smt.Saudamini — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/26TH MAGHA,1942 Con.Case(C).No.1463 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 33142/2015

¶5

AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2019 IN WP(C) 33142/2015(P) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶6

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶7

A.K.ANJANA, AGED 47 YEARS, WIFE OF RATHEESHKUMAR K.V., UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, S.V.V.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALEMADU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 331.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD

¶9

RESPONDENT/4TH RESPONDENT:

¶10

SMT.SAUDAMINI, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 328.

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RASHMI K.M.

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COC No.1463/2020

: 2 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2021

¶18

In judgment dated 15.03.2019 in W.P.(C)

¶19

No.33142/2015, this Court noted the order dated 16.02.2018 issued by the District Educational Officer and found that the main grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. Accordingly, without adjudicating on merits of the case, the writ petition was disposed of directing the 4^th respondent to take steps to make available the monetary benefits due to the petitioner from the order dated 16.02.2018 of the DEO, as expeditiously as possible.

¶20

This contempt case has been filed by the petitioner alleging that though she has been paid some benefits pursuant to the orders of this Court, arrears of salary for the period from 01.08.2008 to 14.07.2010 were not disbursed to her and it amounts to contempt of court.

¶21

The learned Government Pleader opposed the contempt case filing affidavit on behalf of the 1^st respondent.

¶22

COC No.1463/2020

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Headmistress of the School examined the attendance register in respect of the petitioner for disbursing arrears of salary and it was found that the petitioner has not signed the attendance register during the period from 01.08.2008 to 14.07.2010. Therefore, except the arrears of salary for the said period, all other service benefits were extended to the petitioner.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge

¶26

that this Court has already held in earlier judgments that the retrenchment of the petitioner from service was unsustainable and unjustifiable and therefore she will be eligible for the salary for the aforesaid period even if the petitioner has not been worked.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

¶28

By judgment dated 15.03.2019, this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.33142/2015 without any adjudication of merits based on Annexure-I order passed by the DEO. The DEO has ordered in Annexure-I that the petitioner will be entitled to

¶29

COC No.1463/2020

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

eligible salary for her service from 01.08.2008. The DEO has found that since the petitioner has not rendered actual service during the period from 01.08.2008 to 14.07.2010, the petitioner is not eligible for salary for the said period.

¶32

This Court finds that the respondent has passed orders pursuant to the judgment dated 15.03.2019 in W.P.(C) No.33142/2015. The grievance regarding non-payment of arrears of salary from 01.08.2008 to 14.07.2010 will have to be agitated independently. As far as the direction contained in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.33142/2015 is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the direction is substantially complied with.

¶33

Accordingly, leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to seek arrears of salary for the period from 01.08.2008 to 14.07.2010, this Contempt of Court Case is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/15.02.2021

COC No.1463/2020

: 5 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEO, WANDOOR VIDE NO.A3/2426/15 DATED 16.02.2018. ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)NO.33142/2015 DATED 15.03.2019. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION VIDE LETTER NO.A3/1798/19 DATED 19.11.2019 OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO.7/1996/2020 DATED 19.08.2020.

¶41

ncd

A.K.Anjana v. Smt.Saudamini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K.Anjana v. Smt.Saudamini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I. Unnikrishnan Vs Union of India

Mr. G. Anoop Vs Union of India

Pushpalatha S. Jain Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

P.Jayagovind Vs Bijoy Prabhakaran Pulipra(Resolution Professional)

Sreedharan P.K. Vs State of Kerala

School Management Committee (Cmc) Vs State of Kerala