Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 14891 Ker
Judgement Date : 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
CON.CASE(C) NO. 149 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP (CAT) 219/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN OP(CAT):
1 SUJITH P. PAI,
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.PURUSHOTHAMA PAI, TAX ASSISTANT,
O/O JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CORPORATE RANGE, KOCHI,
RESIDING AT ILLICKAL CHIRA, CMC-29 T.D NORTH,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 524.
2 SUJITH KUMAR.S.,
AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O.SUKUMARAN T.A., TAX ASSISTANT,
O/O DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INVESTIGATION),
AAYKAR BHAWAN, SAKTHAN THAMBURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-1,
RESIDING AT THINDIYATH HOUSE, NEDUPUZHA, THRISSUR-07.
3 SAM J.JOSEPH,
AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O.JOSEPH, TAX ASSISTANT,
O/O.PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
SASSTHRI ROAD, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING,
KOTTAYAM-686001,
RESIDING AT NEDUMARUTHAM CHALIL, VANNAPURAM (P.O),
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
SMT.KALA T.GOPI
SRI.B.NAMADEVA PRABHU
CON.CASE(C) NO. 149 OF 2021
2
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.3 IN OP(CAT):
1 RAVINDRA KUMAR,
(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONERS), THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX (CCA), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,
I.S.PRESS ROAD,
COCHIN-682018.
2 M.L.KARMA KUMAR,
(AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONERS), THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX (CCA) IN-CHARGE, KERALA, CENTRAL REVENUE
BUILDING,
I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682018.
BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C) NO. 149 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
In the judgment, from which contempt case is
filed, there was a declaration made that in so far as the issue
of eligibility is concerned, the service rendered in the previous
region, prior to transfer on compassionate ground, will be
counted towards service for eligibility for consideration of
promotion. If and when such selection is made the petitioners
are not considered, they may have a cause of action. As of
now, there is no wilful contempt discernible in the above case.
Accordingly, contempt case is closed.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ww CON.CASE(C) NO. 149 OF 2021
APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY JUDGMENT IN OP(CAT)NO.219 OF 2016 DECIDED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT BY JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2020.
ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.265/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE LEARNED CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH LESS ITS ANNEXURE.
ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 30.11.2020 SERVED UPON THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE OP(CAT) 219/2016.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!