IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 226 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31980/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(PETITIONER):
ROY C.A.
AGED 58 YEARS
PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, ST SEBASTIAN SCHOOL,
CHITTATTUKARA, THRISSUR-680511.
BY ADVS.
P.RAMAKRISHNAN
PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)
T.C.KRISHNA
C.ANIL KUMAR
ASHA K.SHENOY
PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
RESPONDENT:(1ST RESPONDENT)
N. GEETHA
DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR-680003.
BY ADV.SRI.ARAVIND.V.MATHEW
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
C.O(C) No.226 of 2022 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of June 2022 This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner complaining that the directives contained in the judgment dated 19.12.2019 in W.P.(C) No.31980/2019, are not complied with.
2. The direction contained in the judgment are as follows " 3. In that view of the matter I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions.
4. After having learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to pay balance amount due to the petitioner, at the earliest, and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, also taking into account Ext.P9
3.When the matter came up before this Court on 11.03.2022, a submission was made for and on behalf of the respondent that there is no record available in the office of the respondent in order to consider the claim raised by the petitioner for the balance amount and as directed by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to forward a copy of the application as well as the documents enabling the officer concerned to release the amount, on 11.3.2022.
4. However, when the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that 'duplicate copy of the application' could not be C.O(C) No.226 of 2022 3 located and therefore, could not be produced; however, the contempt petition may be closed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to approach the respondent by providing a copy of the application and documents, if any.
5. In that view of the matter, the contempt petition is closed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to file a copy of the application and documents before the respondent and if any such application is submitted, I have no reason to think that the judgment rendered by this Court would not be honoured by the respondent, at the earliest possible time from the date of production of the application.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
smv JUDGE
C.O(C) No.226 of 2022 4
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 226/2022
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.10.2018 IN
WPC NO.30286/2018.
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2019
IN WPC NO.31980/2019.