Roy C.A vs N. Geetha
2022 Latest Caselaw 7025 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
      FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 226 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31980/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(PETITIONER):

             ROY C.A.
             AGED 58 YEARS
             PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, ST SEBASTIAN SCHOOL,
             CHITTATTUKARA, THRISSUR-680511.
             BY ADVS.
             P.RAMAKRISHNAN
             PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)
             T.C.KRISHNA
             C.ANIL KUMAR
             ASHA K.SHENOY
             PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE


RESPONDENT:(1ST RESPONDENT)

             N. GEETHA
             DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
             DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR-680003.



             BY ADV.SRI.ARAVIND.V.MATHEW



     THIS    CONTEMPT   OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 C.O(C) No.226 of 2022                      2




                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of June 2022

This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner complaining that the

directives contained in the judgment dated 19.12.2019 in W.P.(C)

No.31980/2019, are not complied with.

2. The direction contained in the judgment are as follows

" 3. In that view of the matter I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions.

4. After having learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to pay balance amount due to the petitioner, at the earliest, and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, also taking into account Ext.P9

3.When the matter came up before this Court on 11.03.2022, a

submission was made for and on behalf of the respondent that there is no

record available in the office of the respondent in order to consider the claim

raised by the petitioner for the balance amount and as directed by this Court.

Therefore, the petitioner was directed to forward a copy of the application as

well as the documents enabling the officer concerned to release the amount,

on 11.3.2022.

4. However, when the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for

petitioner submitted that 'duplicate copy of the application' could not be

located and therefore, could not be produced; however, the contempt petition

may be closed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to approach the

respondent by providing a copy of the application and documents, if any.

5. In that view of the matter, the contempt petition is closed, leaving

open the liberty of the petitioner to file a copy of the application and

documents before the respondent and if any such application is submitted, I

have no reason to think that the judgment rendered by this Court would not

be honoured by the respondent, at the earliest possible time from the date of

production of the application.

Sd/-

                                                 SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                   JUDGE




                        APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 226/2022

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure A1          TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.10.2018 IN
                     WPC NO.30286/2018.
Annexure A2          CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2019
                     IN WPC NO.31980/2019.