Dismissed

Jayasree B.K v. P.K.Sreekumar

Kerala HC16 Jan 2023Con.Case(C)/894/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition alleged that the KSE Board's order rejecting the petitioner's representation on vacancies was a deliberate violation of a previous judgment. The Court found prima facie merit in the argument but ruled the board's stand did not amount to willful violation, dismissing the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. The contempt case closed with liberty to file an appropriate proceedings challenging the rejected order.

Jayasree B.K Vs P.K.Sreekumar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 26TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CON.CASE(C) NO. 894 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 13754/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

JAYASREE B.K AGED 54 YEARS JAYASREE.B.K., AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. D. RAMESH KUMAR, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), ELECTRICAL DIVISION.KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM-691506 RESIDING AT 'KRISHNAKRIPA' JANANI NAGAR -33 KADAPPAKADA.P.O., KOLLAM-8., PIN - 691008 BY ADVS. ELVIN PETER P.J. K.R.GANESH GOURI BALAGOPAL SREELEKSHMI A.S. ABHIJITH.K.ANIRUDHAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 P.K.SREEKUMAR SRI. P.K. SREEKUMAR, (AGE AND NAME OF FATHER IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004., PIN - 695004 2 SANTHI.K (AGE AND NAME OF FATHER IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004 ADDL R2 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 2/8/22 IN IA 1/22

Con.Case.894/2022

IN COC 894/2022

BY ADV K.M SATHYANATHA MENON K.M

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2023, THE COURT ON 16.01.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Con.Case.894/2022

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2023

¶20

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the 10% quota earmarked for qualified in-service candidates in the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited ('KSE Board' for short). The petitioner asserted that, as on 31.01.2005, 99 vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) were available to be filled up under the 10% in-service quota. According to the KSE Board, the vacancies that available as on 31.01.2005 were only 66. After protracted litigation this Court rendered Annexure A11 judgment directing the KSE Board to reconsider the representations, with specific reference to Exts. P11, P12, P13, P20, P21 and P22 produced in the writ petition and pass the order before 30.04.2022. Thereafter, the respondent issued Annexure A12 order rejecting the petitioner's representations. This contempt case is filed alleging that Annexure A12 order is issued in blatant and deliberate

¶21

Con.Case.894/2022

¶22

¶23

violation of the directions contained in Annexure A11 judgment.

¶24

I heard Adv. Elvin Peter P.J., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Adv. K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, learned Standing Counsel for the KSE Board at length.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the specific admission in Annexure A12 as regards the number of retirees or promotees or LWA availed employees mentioned in Exts. P12 and P13, P20, P21 and P22, there would be 39 more vacancies as on 31.01.2005, in addition to the 66 vacancies already admitted. Therefore, rejection of petitioner's representations on the premise that 66 vacancies available as on 31.01.2005 has attained finality by efflux of time, is nothing but deliberate violation of the directions in Annexure A11 judgment.

¶26

Learned Standing Counsel for the Board contended that Annexure A12 order was passed after considering all the documents produced by the petitioner and on being convinced that the earlier stand, of there being only 66 vacancies, needs no change.

¶27

Con.Case.894/2022

¶28

¶29

Although I find prima facie merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, after having admitted the numbers mentioned in Exts. P12, P13, P20, P21 and P22, the Board could not have rejected the petitioner's representations, reiterating its earlier stand that, as on 31.01.2005, there existed only 66 vacancies, the said stand does not amount to willful and deliberate violation of this Court's directions. Hence, the petitioner will have to challenge Anenxure A12 order in appropriate proceedings.

¶30

The Contempt of Court Case is accordingly closed, reserving the petitioner's liberty to challenge Annexure A12.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

Con.Case.894/2022

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 894/2022

¶38

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶39

AnnexureA1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BOARD ORDER NO. 389/99. (LASI/3584/92) DATED 12.02.1999.
AnnexureA2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BOARD ORDER EB1(A)/AE(ELE.)/158/2018 DATED 12.07.2018.
AnnexureA3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTE DATED 05.08.2022 PREPARED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER-IN-CHARGE (HRM) TO THE SECRETARY OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD.
AnnexureA4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NAMES, DATE OF BIRTH AND DATE OF RETIREMENT OF THE 25 ASSISTANT ENGINEERS WHO RETIRED FROM SERVICE.
AnnexureA5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NAMES OF 5 ASSISTANT ENGINEERS WHO WERE PROMOTED AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS.
AnnexureA6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2020 IN R.P. NO. 297/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
AnnexureA7	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. EB1(A)/AE(E)/WP(C) 4052/2021 DATED 19.04.2021 REJECTING THE REPRESENTATIONS.
AnnexureA8	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO RETIRED FOR THE PERIOD FROM 31.12.2001 TO 31.01.2005.
AnnexureA9	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO WERE THE PERIOD FROM 22.12.2001 TO 31.01.2005. PROMOTED AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS DURING
AnnexureA10	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIST OF PERSON WHO AVAILED L.W.A. AS ON 31.01.2005.
AnnexureA11	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.04.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 13754/2021 OF THIS

Con.Case.894/2022

HON'BLE COURT.

AnnexureA12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. EB1(A)/AE(E)/W.P.(C) NO. 13754/2021 DATED 30.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT REJECTING THE REPRESENTATION RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R2a A true copy of the Judgment dated 28.02.2020 in W.A.No.2221/2019 of this Honble Court. Annexure R2b True copy of the proceedings No.EBI[a}/AE[Ele]/158/2020 dated 03-03-2020 with Annexure.

Jayasree B.K v. P.K.Sreekumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayasree B.K v. P.K.Sreekumar

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

Sidheeque Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited

Muhammed Rais Melayillam Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Rahmath E.M Vs the State of Kerala

Navasmon C M Vs State of Kerala

General Automation Privte Limited Vs Union of India

George Mathew Vs . S. Venkiteashapathi I.A.S.