IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 614 of 2008(S) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20390/2005 Dated 19/10/2007 .................... : PETITIONER -------------------- ARUN SEKHAR R., S/O.S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 31 YEARS, H.S.A (HINDI), V.H.S.S. KARAVARAM, KALLAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT RAJI SADANAM, NEAR TOWN U.P.S.KILIMANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- MR.JAMES VARGHESE, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ======================== Contempt Case (C) No.614 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains of non-compliance with Annexure A1 judgment passed on 19.10.2007. The direction in paragraph 4 of Annexure A1 judgment, reads thus: “However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now that a new manager has taken charge and he is prepared to appoint one protected teacher in accordance with the above said Government Orders, the petitioner's claim for regularisation may be considered in accordance with the said Government Orders. If the 5th respondent files a representation in this regard before the first respondent, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the Government is inclined to accept the said proposal of the manager the petitioner's appointment shall be regularised and salary also shall be disbursed provided the petitioner had worked during the relevant period.” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that although pursuant to the said judgment the proposal of the manager was accepted and a protected teacher was appointed, the petitioner's appointment was not regularised and salary disbursed as directed in the judgment. The contention of Contempt Case (C) No.614 of 2008 - 2 - the respondent is that the Government accepted the proposal of the manager only to the extent that petitioner's salary would be paid only with effect from the date of appointment of the protected teacher namely, 19.12.2007. The petitioner would contend that after having accepted the proposal respondent cannot now say that they will give salary to the petitioner only from the date of appointment of the protected teacher. I am of opinion that the action of the respondent cannot be stated to be non-compliance with Annexure A1 judgment. They have already passed order pursuant to the judgment in which they have stipulated their own contentions. If the petitioner is aggrieved by those conditions it is for him to challenge the orders now passed. At any rate, I am not satisfied that there is any ground for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge orders now Contempt Case (C) No.614 of 2008 - 3 - passed, if he can legally sustain such a challenge, in respect of which, I do not express any opinion. However, I record the statement of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner's salary from 19.12.2007 would be disbursed without delay. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs