IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 45 of 2011(S) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.907/2010 Dated 13/09/2010 .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN WA NO.907/10 ----------------------------------------------- ANILKUMAR, S/O. YASODHARAN, KOTTAPPURATHU VEEDU, PONMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WA NO.907/10 ------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.R.SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 57 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD. (KMML), CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 2. GEORGE KUTTY THOMAS, GENERAL MANAGER, (AGED 56 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD. (KMML), CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 3. T.BALAKRISHNAN I.A.S., (AGED AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, STATE OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.K.ANAND THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Case (C) No. 45 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. This contempt case arises from the verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court dated 13th September, 2010 in W.A.No.907 of 2010. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, inspite of the specific direction given by the Court in Annexure A1 judgment to consider his claim for appointment, with compassion, in any of the posts available in the company, the same has not been properly acted upon and the respondent has passed Annexure A3 order declining any relief to the petitioner which is stated as contumacious and hence liable to be proceeded with, invoking the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. We heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents as well, who submits on instructions that the respondents have considered the claims in compliance with the observation made by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment and accordingly, Annexure A3 order was passed communicating the outcome to the petitioner stating that he did not come within the purview of the Scheme stipulated for providing employment to the candidates who are evictees of the land concerned; particularly being overaged. It is further stated in Annexure A3 that, so far, there is no single instance where any candidate under preferential category is Cont. Case (C) No.45 of 2011 - 2 - given appointment whose age has crossed the prescribed limit. It is also added therein that whenever any notification is issued for any post for which the petitioner qualifies in age and other respects, his application will certainly be considered, giving preferential treatment as per the scheme. 4. We find it difficult to accept the version of the petitioner that the respondents have not acted in accordance with the observation made in Annexure A1 judgment. We do not find any contumacious act on the part of the respondents. The contempt case is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns