Kerala High Court
K.K.Varkey vs Sheel Vardhan Singh on 7 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1054 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.04.2022 IN WA 467/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
K.K.VARKEY, AGED 59 YEARS
CISF NO.84470573,ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR-EXECUTIVE,CISF
UNIT CPT COCHIN, RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.CII/383,CISF
COMPLEX, WILLINGTON ISLAND,COCHIN,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
KERALAPIN - 682003, (UNDER ORDER OF TRANSFER TO CISF UNIT
NLC NEYVELI)
BY ADVS.
T.SANJAY
SANIL KUMAR G.
MIDHUN R.
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):
SHEEL VARDHAN SINGH
(AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) ,
DIRECTOR GENERAL -CISF, CISF HEAD QUARTERS,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. T K VIPIN DAS. SR GP
SRI.S.MANU, ASGI
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
1
ALEXANDER THOMAS & MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN , JJ.
==============================================
Cont.Case (C) No.1054 of 2022
[arising out of the judgment dated
07.04.2022 in W.A No.467/2022]
=========================
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2022
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
The aforecaptioned contempt of court case arises out of the
non-compliance of the directions and orders passed by this Court as per
Annexure-A1 judgment dated 07.04.2022 in W.A.No.467 of 2022, arising
out of W.P.(C) No.5659 of 2022. Now it is apprised to us by Sri.S.Manu,
learned Asst. Solicitor General of India on the basis of the instructions
that the respondent officer has now passed Annexure-R1(a) order dated
27.06.2022, rejecting the plea of the petitioner for retention in the
present posting at Cochin Port Trust, CISF Unit, until his impending
retirement on 30.04.2023 etc.
2. Sri.T.Sanjay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would make strong submissions that the aforesaid order passed in
Annexure-R1(a) cannot be said to be in proper compliance of the
directions of this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment etc., and that a
similarly situated person was given the benefit of exemption etc.
3. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that in case the
petitioner has any legally justiciable grievances in the matter, arising out
of Annexure-R1(a) order dated 27.06.2022, then the remedy for him is
to challenge the same, in the manner known to law. We ascertained
from the learned Asst. Solicitor General of India, whether
Annexure-R1(a) order to be kept in abeyance for a short period of one
week to enable the petitioner to challenge the said order. From these
submissions made, it appears that there is no serious objection in this
Court taking said course of action.
4. Accordingly, without getting into the merits of the
controversy in any manner, it is ordered that Annexure-R1(a) order
dated 27.06.2022 will be kept in abeyance for a period of ten days and it
is for the petitioner to challenge the said order, without any further
delay.
With these observations and directions, the above Contempt of
court case (Civil) will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SB
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1054/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
memo of charges MEMO OF CHARGES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-04-2022
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE MOVEMENT ORDER DATED 02-06-
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01-06-2022 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT
Annexure R1(a) True copy of the order No.
38019/3(02)2022/SOS(C No. 29420)/ESTT-II /2810
dated 27.06.2022,
