Kerala High Court
Dr. Ranjith Ram vs Dr Sharmila Mary Joseph, Ias on 9 October, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
1
Cont.Case (C)No.1859 of 2025
2025:KER:74952
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 17TH ASWINA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1859 OF 2025
ARISING FROM THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.04.2025 IN OP(KAT)
NO.145 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
DR. RANJITH RAM
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O A. RAMAN, AYODHYA, ATTENGANAM. P.O, KASARGOD - 671
531, WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING, GOVT.
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KANNUR, PIN - 670563
BY ADV SRI.T.V. JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:
DR.SHARMILA MARY JOSEPH, IAS
(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY SRI.A.J.VARGHESE, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 09.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
Cont.Case (C)No.1859 of 2025
2025:KER:74952
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner has filed this contempt case alleging willful
disobedience of the direction contained in the judgment dated
07.04.2025 of a Division Bench of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.145
of 2025. Paragraphs 3, 4 and also the last paragraph of that
judgment read thus;
'3. Under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016,
a person suffering from disabilities has been conferred with
certain rights. A Division Bench of this Court had
considered this matter in detail in Balan v. Union of India
[2024 (1) KHC 64] and held that the employer was bound
to consider whether the disabled child required the
environment he enjoyed in equal measures, consequent
upon such transfer being effected. In paragraphs 11 and
12, it is held as follows:
"11. Thus, the question arises whether absence of
the petitioner would deprive the child, the
environment he enjoyed in equal measures with
others. Considering the age and other factors, it
cannot be said that his wife would be able to
adequately maintain the child. If any of the rights
of the disabled child is denied by his absence,
going by S.5 of Chapter II of PWD Act, the transfer
order passed, without adverting to such right of
the child, becomes illegal. In the normal routine of
matter, an organisation is not expected to have a
2025:KER:74952
consideration of the personal matters of an
employee. However, when such personal matters
are intertwined with the rights conferred under
law, the organisation is bound to address such
matters and make sure that the transfer would not
affect the child's best interest. 12. The balancing
factors of administrative interest and individual
interest of an employee vis - a - vis the rights of a
child with disability, will have to be primarily done
by the organisation. After adverting to all the
circumstances in the matter including medical
reports of the child, the living environment,
community life etc., it is for the organisation to
balance their administrative need and the need of
an employee with reference to such a child."
4. In the light of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016, and various U.N. conventions referred to in the
above judgment, it is imperative for the Government to
consider and find out whether the rights of a child or
disabled person would be affected consequent upon
effecting transfer. In the light of the law as above, we
direct the Government to reconsider the matter afresh
after hearing the petitioner and also adverting to the
circumstances related to the child. An appropriate decision
shall be taken within a period of two months. Till then, the
petitioner is permitted to continue there. The impugned
order of the Tribunal as well as the order passed by the
Government are set aside.'
2. Along with this contempt case, the petitioner has
2025:KER:74952
placed on record Annexure A2 order dated 17.07.2025 issued by
the respondent pursuant to the direction contained in the
judgment dated 07.04.2025. According to the petitioner, the said
order is not in strict compliance of the direction contained in that
judgment.
3. On 08.08.2025, when this contempt case came up for
admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time
to get instructions. By the order dated 08.08.2025, the learned
Senior Government Pleader was directed to file an affidavit
sworn to by the respondent, within three weeks.
4. The respondent has filed an affidavit dated
21.08.2025, explaining the facts and circumstances.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that Annexure A2 order dated 17.07.2025 issued by the
respondent is under challenge in O.A.(EKM)No.1122 of 2025 on
the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at
Ernakulam.
Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, this
2025:KER:74952
contempt case is closed, leaving open the legal and factual
contentions raised by the petitioner and without prejudice to his
contentions raised in O.A.(EKM)No.1122 of 2025, pending before
the Tribunal.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
AV
2025:KER:74952
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1859/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP (KAT)
145/2025 DATED 07.04.2025 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
Annexure A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBER G.O(RT)
927/2025/HEDN DATED 17.07.2025
