Disposed

Anees C.K v. Sanal Kumar A.P.

Kerala HC22 Jul 2022Con.Case(C)/1284/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt proceeding, the Kerala High Court held that termination of the petitioner's contract by the Panchayat was not per se contempt due to the Government Order's expiry. The Court directed the Panchayat to submit written submissions within 10 days for a final decision by the Director of Panchayats.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings disposed of without holding the Panchayat guilty. Directed the respondent to submit written submissions within 10 days for further consideration by the Director of Panchayats.

Anees C.K Vs Sanal Kumar A.P. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY 2022 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1944

¶7

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1284 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA.NO.1522/2021 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN WA/PETITIONER IN WPC:

¶10

ANEES C.K., AGED 33 YEARS, CHAMAKKALAYIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673640

¶11

BY ADVS.M/S.K.P.PRADEEP, HAREESH M.R., SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN, T.THASMI, M.J.ANOOPA, SANU S MALAKEEL

¶12

RESPONDENTS/4TH RESPONDENT IN WA/4TH RESPONDENT IN WPC:

¶13

SANAL KUMAR A.P., SECRETARY, VAZHAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH VAZHAKKAD, VAZHAKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM PIN - 673640

¶14

SRI.P.VISWANATHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI.SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL, ADVOCATE.

¶15

SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶17

22.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.

¶19

============================================ Cont. Case (C) No. 1284 of 2022

¶20

(arising out of the impugned judgment dated 29.3.2022 in W.A.No.1522 of 2021) ============================================ Dated this the 22^nd day of July, 2022

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶23

The above Contempt of Court case has been instituted alleging non compliance of the specific directions and orders passed by this Court as per Anx.A judgment dated 29.3.2022 in W.A.No.1522/2021 (arising out of judgment dated 12.11.2021 in WP(C).No.23397/2021) .

¶24

The specific directions issued by this Court as per Anx.A judgment are contained in paras 12 & 13 thereof, which read as follows:

¶25

"12. Accordingly, it is ordered that the appellant may file a detailed representation before the 5^th respondent-Director of Panchayats stating his claim on the basis of Exts.P-11 & P-12 G.Os, the abovesaid circular, said to have been issued by the Director of Panchayats as well as his contentions based on Ext.P-9 Government circular, etc. Such representation may be filed by the appellant, along with a certified copy of this judgment, within 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment,. An advance copy of the said representation shall also be sent by him by registered post to the 4^th respondent-Secretary of the Grama Panchayat concerned. The 3^rd respondent may give their report in the matter to the 5^th respondentDirector of Panchayats regarding their contention, based on the applicability or otherwise of Exts.P-11, P-12, P-9, etc., as well as the abovesaid G.O (Rt.) No.758/2022/LSGD dated 26.03.2022. Decision on the above regard shall be duly rendered by the 5^th respondent-Director of Panchayats without much delay, preferably within a period of four

¶26

Cont. Case (C) No. 1284 of 2022

¶27

..2..

¶28

weeks from the date of hearing of the appellant, as above. A copy of the said report of the 3rd respondent shall also be given in advance by the 3^rd respondent to the appellant. Further, as per the interim order passed by this Court, the post of Overseer, which was earlier occupied by the appellant, was directed to be kept vacant and we are told that the said post is vacant even now. Hence, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 3^rd respondent-Grama Panchayat will temporarily permit the appellant to continue as a contractual hand in the said post of Overseer, immediately and he may be allowed to continue till a decision is taken by the 5^th respondent-Director of Panchayats, as above and his further continuance thereafter, will be dependent on the decision to be rendered by the 5^th respondent-Grama Panchayat, as above. The abovesaid interim arrangement has been made by us since such interim directions have been issued by us in the other writ appeals referred to hereinabove.

¶29

13. We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the controversy in any manner and it is for the 5^th respondent-Director of Panchayats to decide the issue appropriately as regards the applicability or otherwise of the abovesaid Government Orders, Government circulars, etc. These aspects of the matters have not been duly taken note of in the rendering of the impugned judgment. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned judgment dated 12.11.2021, dismissing W.P(C) No.23397/2021, will stand set aside."

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that he had sent Anx.B representation dated 8.4.2022 to the Director of Panchayats stating his claim for temporary continuance as a contractual appointee in the respondent Grama Panchayat on the basis of the government norms in that regard. But, it appears that the petitioner had not given a copy of Anx.B representation to the respondent Panchayat authority as specifically directed by this Court in Anx.A judgment. The respondent Panchayat authority waited till 30.6.2022 to ascertain as to whether a copy of said

¶31

Cont. Case (C) No. 1284 of 2022

¶32

..3..

¶33

representation has been received by them. As per the Government Order then in force, the maximum period of such temporary continuance of contractual hands in local bodies was only up to 30.6.2022. Hence, the respondent Panchayat authority terminated the contractual service of the petitioner with effect from 30.6.2022 and had inducted another contractual hand in his place. The petitioner's contention is that the said action of the respondent Panchayat authority in terminating his service with effect from 30.6.2022, before the Director of Panchayaths had taken a decision on Anx.B representation, would amount to deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by this Court as per Anx.A judgment, and hence would invite Contempt of Court action, etc.

¶34

Sri.P.Viswanathan, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri.Sayed Mansoor Bafakhy Thangal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat Secretary would submit on the basis of instructions that the petitioner has not complied with the specific directions issued by this Court as per Anx.A judgment inasmuch as he has not submitted a copy of the representation in question to the respondent Panchayat Secretary, and that since the

¶35

..4..

¶36

Cont. Case (C) No. 1284 of 2022

¶37

maximum period as per the Government Order then in vogue was only up to 30.6.2022, the respondent Panchayat Secretary was under the bonafide belief that the petitioner may not have filed any representation before the Director of Panchayats, and had accordingly terminated his service, etc.

¶38

The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the norms as per the previous Government Order which was in force till 30.6.2022 have been altered and that the Government has now issued orders extending the benefit of temporary continuance for a further period of 2 years from 30.6.2022 as per G.O. (Rt.) No. 1559/2022/LSGD dated 30.6.2022.

¶39

One of the aspects that would require consideration is as to whether the petitioner has, in fact, sent Anx.B representation dated 8.4.2022 to the Director of Panchayats by registered post as claimed by him. This we say so, as Anx.C is said to be the registered postal receipt in that regard and the person to whom the said letter is addressed is stated as "Director of Principle, Kaudiar" and it does not show that the said registered letter was actually sent to the Director of Panchayats. At any rate, it is the admitted case of

¶40

Cont. Case (C) No. 1284 of 2022

¶41

the petitioner that he had not sent a copy of Anx.B representation dated 8.4.2022 to the respondent Panchayat Secretary, directed by this Court as per Anx.A judgment.

¶42

On being queried, Sri.K.P.Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that copy of Anx.B representation was given to the respondent Panchayat Secretary on 1.7.2022. If that be so, admittedly it was after he was terminated from service with effect from 30.6.2022.

¶43

In order to resolve the stalemate, we had requested Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned Senior Government Pleader to get specific instructions from the Director of Panchayats, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, as to whether Anx.B representation dated 8.4.2022 said to have been sent by registered post has been recieved by the said authority.

¶44

Today when the matter has been taken up for consideration, Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned Senior Government Pleader would submit on the basis of instructions that the Director of Panchayats has received Anx.B representation on 13.4.2022 and that decision on the said matter raised in Anx.B representation will

¶45

Cont. Case (C) No. 1284 of 2022

¶46

..6..

¶47

be taken up by the Director of Panchayats without any further delay, and if all the parties especially the petitioner and the respondent Panchayat Secretary co-operate in giving their written submissions, then the decision could be taken within 2 weeks or within such reasonable time that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶48

Since the petitioner has admittedly not submitted copy of Anx.B representation as stipulated in Anx.A judgment, we are not in a position to hold that the action taken by the respondent Panchayat Secretary in terminating his contractual services with effect from 30.6.2022 can be said to per se Contempt of Court. This we say so as the Government Order then in force namely G.O.(Rt.) No.758/2022/LSGD dated 26.3.2022, had permitted temporary continuance of such contractual hands only till 30.6.2022. The subsequent G.O. as per G.O. (Rt.) No. 1559/2022/LSGD dated 30.6.2022 was issued only on 30.6.2022.

¶49

In the light of these aspects, and more particularly in view of the conduct of the petitioner in not complying with his obligations in terms of Anx.A judgment, we are not in a position to hold that the respondent Panchayat Secretary has committed any

¶50

Cont. Case (C) No. 1284 of 2022

¶51

..7..

¶52

contumacious act warranting penal measures under the Contempt of Courts Act and the rules framed thereunder. However, we requested to all the parties that the stalemate should be resolved without any further delay.

¶53

The learned Senior counsel would submit on behalf of the respondent Panchayat Secretary that the respondent Panchayat authority would require short time to give written submissions to the Director of Panchayats.

¶54

Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondent Panchayat Secretary will give the written version of the Panchayath on the plea made by the petitioner in Anx.B representation as well as on the contentions raised by him in Anx.A judgment without any further delay at any rate within 10 days from today, and such written submissions of the respondent Panchayath should be submitted to the Director of Panchayats by registered post, and should also be send by e-mail attachment to the Director of Panchayats. A copy of said written submissions should also be given by the respondent Panchayath Secretary to the petitioner by registered post. The Director of Panchayats will thereafter invite

¶55

Cont. Case (C) No. 1284 of 2022

¶56

..8..

¶57

the petitioner as well as the respondent Panchayath Secretary for hearing and thereafter will take a considered decision on the matters raised in Anx.B representation taking note of the specific contentions raised by the petitioner in Anx.A judgment as well as also taking note of the impact of the subsequent order passed by the Government as per G.O. (Rt.) No. 1559/2022/LSGD dated 30.6.2022.

¶58

We make it clear that the induction of the temporary contractual hand in lieu of the petitioner will be subject to the result of the decision that may be taken by the Director of Panchayats on Anx.B representation. The respondent Panchayath Secretary will intimate the new contractual appointee that his/her appointment will be subject to the result of the decision that may be taken by the Director of Panchayats on the abovesaid representation as ordered in Anx.A judgment.

¶59

The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the Director of Panchayats, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, for necessary information. The Registry will also make available a copy of this judgment to Sri.T.K.Vipindas,

¶60

..9..

¶61

Cont. Case (C) No. 1284 of 2022

¶62

learned Senior Government Pleader so that the Secretary to the office of the Advocate General can also communicate a copy of this judgment to the Director of Panchayats.

¶63

With these observations and directions, the above Contempt of Court case will stand disposed of.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE

¶68

MMG

¶69

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1284/2022

¶70

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶71

ANNEXURE A	A CERTIFIED COPY OF T THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 2 OF 2021	HE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY 9-03-2022 IN WA NO. 1522
ANNEXURE B	TRUE COPY OF THE REPR 2022 SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT	ESENTATION DATED 08-04- PETITIONER BEFORE THE
ANNEXURE C	TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL	RECEIPT
ANNEXURE D	TRUE COPY OF THE ME PETITIONER FROM THE IN ARTICLE NO.EL317970245IN	SSAGE RECEIVED BY THE DIA POST IN RELATION TO
ANNEXURE E	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE RESPONDENT	DATED 30-06-2022 ISSUED

Anees C.K v. Sanal Kumar A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anees C.K v. Sanal Kumar A.P.

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

Reji K Varghese Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Excise

Krishnakumari, Vs the District Police Chief

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

E.T.Abdul Jabbar Vs the Joint Registrar of Co. Operative Societies (G)

Mathew Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Pg Subramanian Vs State of Kerala