Jayarajan. R.C vs Dr.D. Sajith Babu Ias
2021 Latest Caselaw 2989 Ker

Con.Case(C).No.1799 OF 2020

IN WP(C). 17650/2020

                                   1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

   WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942

        Con.Case(C).No.1799 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 17650/2020

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17650/2020(E) OF HIGH COURT
                           OF KERALA


PETITIONER/S:

                JAYARAJAN. R.C
                AGED 49 YEARS
                S/O M P KUNHIRAMA PODUVAL, EXECUTIVE
                SECRETARY(UNDER SUSPENSION) DISTRICT NIRMITHI
                KENDRA, KASARGOD

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.M.SASINDRAN
                SRI.JOMY K. JOSE

RESPONDENT/S:

                DR.D. SAJITH BABU IAS
                AGE AND FATHERS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
                THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT
                NIRMITHI KENDRA, COLLECTORATE, KASARGOD-671121.



                SRI -- P M SATHEESH .

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 20-01-2021, THE COURT ON 27-01-2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).No.1799 OF 2020

IN WP(C). 17650/2020

                                  2

                           C.S DIAS,J.
                      ---------------------------
              Contempt Case (C) No. 1799 of 2020
                      -----------------------------
               Dated this the 27th January, 2021.

                          JUDGMENT

The Contempt Case is filed alleging that the

respondent has willfully disobeyed Annexure-AIII judgment.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, although this

Court had by Annexure AIII judgment directed the

respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P6 and P7

applications produced in W.P (C) No.17650 of 2020, within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

the judgment, the respondent has willfully disobeyed to

comply the directions. Hence, the respondent has committed

contempt of court, as defined under the Contempt of Court

Act, 1971.

3. The respondent has filed an affidavit, inter alia,

contending that, pursuant to Annexure-AIII judgment,

Exts.A6 and A7 applications submitted by the petitioner, Con.Case(C).No.1799 OF 2020

IN WP(C). 17650/2020

seeking subsistence allowance and revocation of

suspension, were duly considered by passing Annexures

R1(a) and R1(b) orders. The direction passed by this Court

has been complied with, within the time stipulated, in its

letter and spirit. There is no violation or willful

disobedience as alleged in the contempt case. Subsequent

to the passing of the above orders, the petitioner has

challenged the same in W.P (C)26865/2020, which is

pending consideration. Hence, the contempt case may be

closed.

4. The petitioner has filed a reply to the affidavit filed

by the respondent, contending that even though the service

of the petitioner was terminated, the respondent has not

passed any orders on the representation for revocation of

suspension and re-instatement of the petitioner in service.

Hence, the respondent has not complied with Annexure-AIII

judgment in its entirety. Nevertheless, the petitioner has

admitted that he has filed W.P(C) No.26885/2020 and this

Court has stayed his termination from service by Annexure- Con.Case(C).No.1799 OF 2020

IN WP(C). 17650/2020

AV order. Hence, the contentions alleged in the affidavit

filed by the respondent may be discarded and he may be

punished for contempt of court.

5. Heard Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and the the learned Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent.

6. It is on record that pursuant to Annexure-AIII

judgment, the respondent has passed Annexures R1 (a) and

R1(b). It is also not disputed that the service of the

petitioner was terminated by the respondent, which has

been challenged before this Court in W.P (C)

No.26865/2020. This Court has stayed the termination

proceeding by Annexure-AV order. Therefore, the

contention of the petitioner that the respondent has not

passed any orders on Exts.P6 and P7 cannot be accepted,

because the question of subsistence allowance has become

an integral part of the termination proceeding and the

question of revocation of suspension does not arise now.

Also, since the service of the petitioner has been Con.Case(C).No.1799 OF 2020

IN WP(C). 17650/2020

terminated, a fresh cause of action has arisen, and the

same has already been challenged in W.P (C)

No.26865/2020.

7. On an overall appreciation of the pleadings and

materials on record, I do not find that the respondent has

wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions of this

Court in Annexure AIII judgment, as alleged in the

contempt case.

Leaving open the right of the petitioner to agitate his

subsisting grievances, if any, in W.P(C)No.26865/2020, the

Contempt Case is closed.

ma/21.01.2021 Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

/True copy/ Con.Case(C).No.1799 OF 2020

IN WP(C). 17650/2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE-A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 8/7/2020 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE-AII A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.08.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR REVOCATION OF THE SUSPENSION AND ANCILLARY BENEFITS.

ANNEXURE-AIII A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/08/2020 IN WPC NO.17650 OF 2020.

ANNEXURE-A IV A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE AIII BY THE RESPONDENT.