Aparna Mohan vs Anitha P I
2022 Latest Caselaw 7714 Ker

CON.CASE(C) NO. 722 OF 2022            1



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
     TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
                     CON.CASE(C) NO. 722 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.23055/2021 DATED 25.11.2021 OF
                         HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

             APARNA MOHAN
             OFFICE ATTENDANT APPOINTEE
             RESIDING AT KANJIRAPPARA NALUKETTU
             PRAKKANAM P.O.
             PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN - 689643

             BY ADV V.B.PREMACHANDRAN


RESPONDENT/4TH RESPONDENT:

             ANITHA P I
             AGE AND FATHER'S NAME OF THE NOT KNOWN TO THE
             PETITIONER,
             THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
             KOZHENCHERY,THEKKEMALA P O,
             PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,, PIN - 695654



             SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP


     THIS CONTEMPT    OF COURT   CASE (CIVIL)   HAVING COME   UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 722 OF 2022                 2




                                   JUDGMENT

By judgment dated 25.11.2021 in W.P.(C) No.23055 of 2021, this Court

had quashed Ext.P18 order and directions were issued to the AEO, Kozhencherry

to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Office Attendant on a regular

scale of pay basis in the M.G.U.P School, Prakkanam from the date of

appointment i.e., 01.08.2017 and disburse all consequential benefits that the

petitioner is entitled to. Alleging non-compliance of the directions, the petitioner

is before this Court with this contempt case.

2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that in

terms of the directions issued, by order dated 16.05.2022, the approval of the

appointment of the petitioner as Office Attendant on a regular scale of pay basis

was granted from 01.08.2017 and the salary bill was sanctioned and forwarded

to the Treasury for the period from 1.08.2017 to 30.06.2019. For the subsequent

period, the petitioner herein had taken LWA for pursuing B.Ed. and hence, she

cannot claim any entitlement.

3. Sri. V.B. Premachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner has not received the benefits to

which she is entitled to, to date.

4. As the respondent has complied with the directions in the judgment in

its letter and spirit, no case of contempt is made out. If the petitioner is in any

way aggrieved, she can raise her grievance in appropriate proceedings.

This Contempt Case (C) is closed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 722/2022

PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES :

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT DATED 20.1.2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.2244/2020 Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.

NO.1358/2021 DATED 10.11.2021 Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.23055/2021 DATED 25.11.2021 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN THE SAID R.P.

NO.916/2021 DATED 16.12.2021

RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES : NIL