T.Sumathy vs Mohan Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 12567 Ker

                     ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                       Unnumbered I.A.
                              In
                   Cont.Case No.189 of 2018
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
             Dated this the 26th day of May , 2021

                              ORDER

1. W.P.(C).No.32172 of 2015 had been filed by the petitioner

seeking implementation of Exhibit P4 order dated 30.06.2015

by which the petitioner's period of suspension was directed to

be regularised. The writ petition was heard along with W.P.

(C).No.24765 of 2016 filed by the Manager of the school

challenging the order. On 16.8.2017, the writ petitions were

disposed of by a common judgment with a direction to

implement Exhibit P4 in W.P.(C).No. 32172/2015 and to grant

all benefits due thereon to the petitioner without insisting of

any recovery from the Manager within four months. On the

ground that the judgment had not been complied with the

petitioner filed Contempt of Court Case No.189/2018. A writ

appeal was preferred against the judgment, which was also

dismissed on 7.1.2020. Thereafter notice was issued to the

respondents. They appeared in person and proceedings dated

25.9.2020 reckoning the period of suspension as duty for all

purposes but limiting the emoluments to subsistence

allowances drawn was produced by the Government Pleader.

This Court considered the directions and held that since the

benefits as directed in the judgment had been granted to the

petitioner the contempt has not survived for consideration.

The contempt of court case therefore was accordingly closed

on 21.10.2020. Thereafter I.A.No.1/2021 was filed for

reopening the contempt on the ground that the amounts

actually due to the petitioner had not been paid. The I.A. was

dismissed holding that if the petitioner has any dispute with

regard to the amounts paid, the same has to be raised in

appropriate proceedings and not in the contempt of court

case.

2. Thereafter, a defective unnumbered IA has been filed as

I.A.No.2/2021 by the petitioner in person contending that huge

amounts are due to the petitioner on account of the action of

the Manager in having placed the petitioner under suspension

not having appointed her as Headmistress and on account of

amounts due as salary for the period of suspension. This

Court had specifically noticed in the judgment that the

direction in Exhibit P4 order dated 30.6.2015 was to

regularise the period of suspension as duty limiting the

amounts due to the subsistence allowance already drawn by

the petitioner.

3. In the above view of the matter, the contentions raised in the

unnumbered I.A. by the petitioner are completely untenable

and devoid of merits. Applications to reopen the contempt of

court case cannot be repeatedly filed on the same grounds. If

the petitioner has any grievance as against the payment of

amounts to her, it is for her to take up the matter in

appropriate proceedings. There is no merit in the I.A and the

same is not maintainable. The defect noted by the Registry is

therefore upheld.

Sd/-

Anu Sivaraman, Judge

sj