T. P. Anto vs Geetha N
2021 Latest Caselaw 15552 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943
                         CON.CASE(C) NO. 989 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2297/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                                  ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:

             T.P.ANTO, AGED 57 YEARS
             S/O. LATE T.POULOSE, CLERK(RETIRED) BISHOP VAZHAPPILLY
             MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, KALLETTUMKARA, THRISSUR-680 683

             P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
             K.SUDHINKUMAR
             N.L.BITTO



RESPONDENTS:

    1        GEETHA N., AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
             PETITIONER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE
             DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOL,
             THRISSUR-680 003

    2        MANOJ KUMAR.P.V., AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
             THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
             IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR-680 121

    3        ABDUL HAMEED, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
             PETITIONER, HEAD MASTER, BISHOP VAZHAPPILLY MEMORIAL
             HIGH SCHOOL, KALLETTUMKARA, THRISSUR-680 683

             SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP


     THIS     CONTEMPT   OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 989 OF 2021
                                  2

                               JUDGMENT

This contempt case has been filed with an allegation that

in spite of the directions in W.P.(C) No.2297/2019, the amount

of Rs.45,456/-, withheld from the petitioner, has not yet been

paid back by the respondents.

2. The learned Senior Government Pleader,

Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that the allegations of the petitioner

are not correct because it is only due to certain administrative

reasons that there has been some delay in the concerned

Deputy Director of Education (DDE) issuing necessary orders

to the third respondent. He submitted that this will be done

without any further delay.

3. Sri.K.T.Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the

third respondent - Headmaster of the School, submitted that

as soon as the proceedings from the DDE is received, his

client will ensure that the amounts are paid to the petitioner.

4. Taking note of the afore submissions, I close this

contempt case, with a direction to the first respondent or the

present jurisdictional Deputy Director, to issue necessary

orders in compliance with the directions of this judgment and CON.CASE(C) NO. 989 OF 2021

to forward the same to the third respondent, within a period

of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment; and consequently, the third respondent will ensure

that the amounts withheld from the petitioner are paid to him

within one month thereafter.

Needless to say, if the directions in this judgment are

also not complied with, the petitioner will be at liberty to

approach this Court with a fresh contempt case.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE STU CON.CASE(C) NO. 989 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 989/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure -I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.03.2021 IN WPC NO.2297/2019