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 MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1392 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30038/2004 Dated 02/01/2007 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- A.K.SASIDHARAN, S/O.A.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 58 YEARS, RETD.SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER & DY.CHIEF ENGINEER, HOUSE NO.1,DIAMOND ENCLAVE, T.C.2/1943(14),SHIV-DARSHAN, GOUREESHAPATTOM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- SRI.PRADEEP KUMAR, (FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. BENNY GERVASIS. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1392 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of non-implementation of Annexure A1 judgment dated 02.01.2007 in W.P.(C) No.30038 of 2004, whereby the rights and liberties of the petitioner with regard to the seniority over the 2nd respondent were declared and the writ petition was allowed in this regard. 2. After filing of the above Contempt Case, the petitioner has now filed an additional affidavit, also producing a copy of G.O.(Rt) No.45/2011/WRD dated 12.01.2011(Produced as Annexure A21). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the respondents have passed Annexure A21 order, allegedly in compliance with the directions given by this Court, it is actually not in conformity with the mandate in Annexure A1 judgment and hence constitutes the offence under the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned counsel further submits that, the writ petition having been allowed, declaring COC No. 1392 of 2010 -:2:- that the petitioner is to be held as senior to the 2nd respondent, Annexure A21 order, giving such seniority only on a notional basis without giving consequential benefits, cannot be said as in conformity with the direction given by this Court and hence is liable to be proceeded against. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent as well. 4. Going by Annexure A1 judgment, obviously after declaring the better seniority of the petitioner over the 2nd respondent in paragraph 10, it was observed in the concluding paragraph that the petitioner is entitled to file appropriate representation for the consequential benefits before the appropriate authority within two weeks, simultaneously giving direction to the appropriate authority to consider the same and to have it disposed of within one month thereafter. 5. As borne by Annexure A21, the respondent has considered the effect of the declaration made by this Court and accordingly, the petitioner has been placed as senior to the 2nd respondent, however fixing the seniority on a notional basis and COC No. 1392 of 2010 -:3:- declining the other benefits. If at all the petitioner has got a case that he is entitled to have the consequential benefits as well, it is always open to the petitioner to have it (Annexure A21) challenged by way of appropriate proceedings. We find nothing contumacious to proceed against the respondent. The Contempt Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb