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 THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1259 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMEN IN WPC.32592/2010 Dated 07/06/2010 .................... PETITIONER: ------------------------- L.PREMKUMAR, S/O. LAKSHAMANAN, AGED 49 YEARS, SUBAMANGALAM VILLAGE, C.K.ASHRAMAM POST, TIRUPATTUR, VELLUR DISTRICT, PIN-635602. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. N.GOVINDA KARANAVAR,FATHERS NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DIVISIONAL PERSONAL PERSONAL OFFICER, SOUTHER RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALGHAT-678002. 2. S.K.RAINA, FATHERS NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALGHAT-678002. 3. DEEAK KRISHNAN, FATHERS NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PART TOWN, P.O.CHENNAI-3. R1 TO R3 BY SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Con.Case(C).No. 1259 of 2010(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT: ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) No.32592 OF 2008 DATED 7.6.2010. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1259 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The Contempt Case arises from the judgment dated 07.06.2010 in W.P.(C) No.32592 of 2008 whereby the candidature of the petitioner for giving appointment/absorption in the Railways was directed to be considered in the manner specified therein, which according to the petitioner, has been simply flouted by the respondent, giving rise to the offence. 2. The sequence of events is as follows: The petitioner is stated as a retrenched casual worker who sought to have regularisation in service and approached the CAT. The claim of the petitioner was referred by the Tribunal, holding that he had sought for the reliefs on the basis of some bogus certificates and had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. 3. The petitioner challenged the verdict of the CAT by filing W.P.(C) No.32592 of 2008, where this Court observed that the subsequent certificate produced by the petitioner was liable Contempt Case (Civil) No.1259 of 2010 -:2:- to be reckoned for the reasons stated in the verdict. The observations made by the Tribunal in the order passed while declining interference, have been extracted in paragraph 2 of the said verdict and giving some indulgence to the petitioner who had studied only up to the Sixth Standard, the matter was ordered to be reconsidered in the light of Annexure A7. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: “For the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P1 is set aside and O.A. No.503/07of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench will stand ordered, directing the respondents therein to take up the case of the petitioner and issue such orders, as may be called for, in the light of Annexure A7 certificate and he be admitted to duty accordingly, in terms of the appropriate guidelines. Let this be done at the earliest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 4. The case of the petitioner is that, pursuant to the above verdict, the petitioner was asked to appear for medical examination. However, since petitioner was not found medically fit, the benefit of absorption ordered by this Court was denied to him, which according to the petitioner, amounts Contempt Case (Civil) No.1259 of 2010 -:3:- to an offence involving contempt and is liable to be proceeded further. 5. Smt.Sumathi Dandapani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Railways submits that the scope of the said verdict passed by this Court is only to have the candidature of the petitioner considered in accordance with the guide lines, as discernible from the penultimate sentence of the last paragraph of the verdict. It is accordingly, that the matter was considered by the Railways who issued Annexure A1(C) order dated 24.02.2007 asking he petitioner to be examined by the Medical Superintendent. Pursuant to the examination conducted, it was found that the petitioner was not medically fit. The petitioner was further caused to be examined by the medical authorities concerned and the second examination also turned to be in confirmation of the position revealed earlier and it was in the said circumstances, that the petitioner could not be absorbed in service. It is also stated that the respondent has already issued Annexure R4(c) order dated 22.03.2011 referring to the factual position and the same has already been communicated to the Contempt Case (Civil) No.1259 of 2010 -:4:- petitioner. The learned counsel also submits that there is absolutely no disobedience of any order passed by this Court and that the direction contained in Annexure A1 has been fully complied with. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for a further direction to be given to the Railways to constitute a Medical Board, in view of the allegedly conflicting opinions revealed from Annexure A2/A3 Medical Certificates dated 06.02.2011 and 16.02.2011 and the Certificates sought to be relied on by the Railways. The learned Standing Counsel for the Railways submits that the certificates produced by the petitioner were issued by the Doctors of choice of the petitioner and not by the Medical authorities recognised by the Railways. The concerned Medical authorities recognised by the Railways examined the petitioner and certified that the petitioner was medically unfit. In the above circumstances, we find that there is no contumacious act on the part of the respondents to be proceeded against. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by Contempt Case (Civil) No.1259 of 2010 -:5:- Annexure A1 order; whereby absorption was denied to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to challenge it by resorting to appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. The Contempt of Court Case is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb