Sr.Dr.O.U.Jincy vs Balakrishnan P.M
2021 Latest Caselaw 9910 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943

          Con.Case(C).No.224 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 21985/2020

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21985/2020(W) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


PETITIONERS:

      1        SR.DR.O.U.JINCY, AGED 42 YEARS
               D/O. ULAHANNAN, CORPORATE MANAGER, CHALDEAN SYRIAN
               CHURCH SCHOOLS, CHURCH OF THE EAST, MAR TIMOTHEUS
               HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001

      2        JOICE JOY,
               AGED 32 YEARS
               D/O. JOY VARGHESE, L.P.S.A, CHALDEAN SYRIAN L.P.
               SCHOOL, CHURCH OF THE EAST, MAR TIMOTHEUS HIGH ROAD,
               THRISSUR-680 001

               SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
               SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
               SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN

RESPONDENT:

               BALAKRISHNAN P.M.
               AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
               ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR EAST,
               THRISSUR-680 001

               SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL-SR.GP

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).No.224 OF 2021

                                        2


                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of March 2021

This contempt case has been filed alleging that the

respondent had issued Annexure A3 order on 12.01.2021 in

flagrant violation of the directions in the judgment dated

30.10.2020 in W.P.(C)No.21985/2020.

2. Noticing the submissions of Sri.Brijesh Mohan, the

learned counsel for the petitioners, on 26.02.2021, I had

passed the following order:

"At first glance, I cannot find Annexure - A3 order to be in conformity with the directions of this Court, because it has been found therein that the post in question had been sanctioned in the academic year 2013-2014 - being the year in which the petitioner had been appointed - and therefore, that it could only be construed that the Government intended the teachers working in the School from those years to be protected and given their due benefits.

2. However, in Annexure - A3, the AEO has merely reiterated his earlier stand, that the petitioner was appointed to a vacancy of a head teacher and that this is impermissible and further that there is nothing to show that she was working against the additional vacancy. I cannot, prima facie, find these observations to be tenable.

Discerning my mind as afore, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought two weeks time to confer with the respondent and to ascertain whether a fresh order can be issued."

3. Today, the learned Senior Government Pleader,

Sri.Mathew George Vadakkel, submitted that a fresh order has

been issued, granting approval to the second petitioner's Con.Case(C).No.224 OF 2021

appointment from the academic year 2013-14 and that her

salary and other benefits pursuant thereto will be disbursed

within a period of two months from the said order, as has

been directed by this Court.

Taking note of the afore submissions, I close this

contempt case; however, leaving liberty to the petitioners to

approach this Court again, if the salary is not paid within the

time fixed by this Court.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

stu JUDGE Con.Case(C).No.224 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 21985/2020 ALONG WITH EXHIBITS P1 T P19

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2020 IN WPC NO. 21985/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/2414/2019 DATED 12.01.2021 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.