K. Mohanan vs M.G. Rajamanikyam
2021 Latest Caselaw 6900 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

    FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942

       Con.Case(C).No.2122 OF 2016(S) IN WP(C). 33906/2015

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 33906/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

             K. MOHANAN
             AGED 60, S/O. KAMALASANAN, MOHANA VILASOM,
             VELIYAMCODE P.O, VELIYAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
             RETIRED EMPANELLED BLACK SMITH, CENTRAL WORKSHOP,
             PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

             BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

             M.G. RAJAMANIKYAM
             MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
             CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 039.



             BY SRI.T.P.SAJAN, STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).No.2122 OF 2016(S)              2

 IN WP(C). 33906/2015




                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of February 2021

This contempt case is filed complaining that the directives contained in

the judgment dated 11.7.2016 in W.P.(C) No.33906/2015 are not complied

with.

2. The subject issue relates to an application viz., Ext.P4, which was

pending before the respondent to regularise the service of the petitioner.

Today when the matter is taken up, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent, submitted that in compliance with the directions issued by this

Court, an order was passed by the authority on 6.1.2017, however the claim of

the petitioner was rejected.

3. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that

nothing survives to be considered in this contempt petition since the

directions issued by this Court are complied with, though belatedly, Therefore,

the contempt petition is closed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to

challenge the order, if advised and aggrieved so.

Sd/-

                                                      SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                       JUDGE


 IN WP(C). 33906/2015

                                 APPENDIX



PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.7.2016 IN W.P. (C)NO.33906/2015.

ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE A DATED 19.8.2016