Krishna Moorthy V vs S.Gayathri Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 3079 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

            THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1943

                          CON.CASE(C) NO. 2141 OF 2021

         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35486/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:

              KRISHNA MOORTHY V
              AGED 41 YEARS
              S/O VENKITESWARA IYER,
              EDASSERY AKRAM, ASWATHY BHAVAN, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695125(MANAGER, VARANASY SATHRAM, TRAVANCORE
              DEVASWOM BOARD, VARANASY).

              BY ADV S.SUBHASH CHAND



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NOS.1&2 IN THE WRIT PETITION:

     1        S.GAYATHRI DEVI
              AGED 54 YEARS
              SECRETARY,
              TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, NANTHANCODE,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

     2        B S PRAKASH
              AGED 52 YEARS
              DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM
              BUILDINGS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

              BY ADV SHRI.G.BIJU,SC



OTHER PRESENT:

              SRI.G.BIJU ,SC




     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

17.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 2141 OF 2021

                                      2




                               JUDGMENT

This Contempt Case has been filed alleging that Annexure R1(a)

order has been issued by the respondent in violation of the directions

of this Court in the judgment dated 02.02.2021.

2. The afore allegation of the petitioner, as made by his

learned counsel - Sri.Subhash Chand, was answered by Sri.G.Biju -

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, saying that, as is

evident from the order now issued, the petitioner's probation has been

declared with effect from 07.09.2016 and all eligible benefits granted.

He, therefore, prayed that this Contempt Case be dismissed.

3. In reply, Sri.Subhash Chand, submitted that even though

his client's probation was declared with effect from 07.09.2016, his

eligible promotions have been withheld and that his junior has now

reached much higher positions, overlooking his claim.

4. I, therefore, asked Sri.G.Biju about this, to which, his reply

was that promotion of the person mentioned by the petitioner was on

the basis of the seniority in the cadre of Low Paid Temple Employees

and on the edifice of the Rules applicable to such service.

5. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is clear that there CON.CASE(C) NO. 2141 OF 2021

is disputation regarding the entitlement of the petitioner to promotion

above his junior. This is not a matter that this Court can decide

affirmatively while acting in Contempt of Courts jurisdiction. The

petitioner will certainly have to challenge the order now issued by the

respondent, for which purpose, his liberties will have to be reserved.

Resultantly, I close this Contempt Case, without entering into

the merits of the order now issued by the respondent; however,

leaving full liberty to the petitioner to invoke any remedy against the

same, for which purpose, all his contentions are left open.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp CON.CASE(C) NO. 2141 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2141/2021

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2/2/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.35486 OF 2019.