IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 682 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.405/2010 DATED 19/01/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- LISSY PAUL, JUNIOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE, PILOT SCHEME DISPENSARY, MUKKALI, ATTAPPADI, RESIDING AT PAYYAPPALLY HOUSE, KURUMASSERY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.S.KARTHIKA, SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.M.R.ANISON, SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI. RESPONDENT(S): IST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- MR.MANOJ JOSHY, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... CONT.CASE.NO.682 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner complains of non compliance with the directions contained in Ext.A1 judgment of this court. As per Ext.A1 judgment, it has been directed as follows:- “This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 application for transfer of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The second respondent shall forward Ext.P2 application to the first respondent for necessary action, immediately”. 2. Pursuant to the judgment, Annexure A2 order has been issued. The representation submitted by the petitioner has been considered and it has been ordered as follows:- Coc 682/2010 2 “4. But considering the pathetic condition of Smt.Lissy Paul, Junior Public Health Nurse, as per the order read above, she has been posted to Ernakulam district on working arrangement for a period of one year. 5. The representation read above is disposed of as above and the judgment read above is complied with accordingly”. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that there is still one vacancy in existence at Ernakulam, as is evident from Ext.A2. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner has been denied the transfer that she had sought for deliberately and without any justification. 4. I do not propose to consider the contention of the petitioner on the merits. It is clear from the order extracted above that the respondent has complied with the directions of this court. If the petitioner has any further grievance in the matter, the same would have to be agitated in Coc 682/2010 3 separate proceedings instituted for the purpose. For the above reasons, there are no grounds for continuing the present action for contempt against the respondent. This contempt case is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk