IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21227 of 2009(S) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2009 IN OA.69/2005 IN CPC.22/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- P.P.LONAPPAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.P.A.PAPPU, 31/848,PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O., COCHIN-19. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- V.N. KAILA, CONTROLLER GENERAL OF ACCOUNTS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE, NEW DELHI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.21227 of 2009 S ------------------------------ Dated this, the 3rd day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated 4.6.2009, dismissing a motion for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent. The petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.69 of 2005 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of by Ext.P1 order. The relevant portion of the said order, reads as follows: “Based on the above finding, we partially allow this O.A. and quash the impugned order A-7. There shall be a direction to the respondents concerned that they shall communicate all the entries below the benchmark grading for the check period for promotions considered in the DPC meeting held on 31.3.2003 and 19.5.2004, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In respect of each one of them, the applicant shall submit his representations WP(C) No.21227 of 2009 - 2 - within one month of receipt of the ACRs. Such representations shall be duly considered and decision taken by the appropriate authorities within one month of receipt of such representations in the light of the prevailing rules, regulations, instructions and orders. Within three months of such decision having been made, an ad hoc DPC should be held to consider the case of the applicant and final decision taken without causing any prejudice to the persons already promoted. If the applicant is promoted as a result of decisions taken in pursuance of the above exercise, he shall be duly entitled to all consequential benefits.”. The respondents in the Original Application moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.22718 of 2007. It would appear that, there was stay in that writ petition against Ext.P1 order. Therefore, the earlier contempt proceedings initiated for non-implementation of Ext.P1 against the respondent herein was closed by Ext.P2 order dated 31.7.2007. Later, this Court by Ext.P3 judgment, dismissed the said writ petition on 12.11.2008. Soon thereafter, on 31.1.2009, the contempt application was filed before the Tribunal alleging that Ext.P1 WP(C) No.21227 of 2009 - 3 - order was not obeyed by the respondent so far. The respondent filed Ext.P5 affidavit in the contempt application along with Annexure R1 communication dated 19.1.2009. It was a communication issued in purported implementation of the direction issued in Ext.P1. The petitioner was given one month's time from the date of communication of Ext.R1 for filing his representation. On finding that the petitioner did not file any representation, the respondent again issued Annexure R2 on 18.3.2009, calling upon him to submit his representation, if any, within ten days. The respondent resisted the contempt application contending that, though he has performed his part under Ext.P1, the petitioner has failed to respond by filing his representation. The Tribunal, considering the above facts, dismissed the contempt application by Ext.P7 order dated 4.6.2009. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P7. 2. Going by the materials on record, it can be presumed that, there was stay of Ext.P1 till the disposal of writ petition, filed challenging that order before this Court, by Ext.P3 judgment dated 12.11.2008. On receipt of that judgment, the respondent has issued Annexure R1 dated 19.1.2009 calling WP(C) No.21227 of 2009 - 4 - upon the petitioner to file his representation. It was followed by Ext.R2 reminder. Going by the materials on record, it would appear that the petitioner did not respond to those communications, though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his party has responded. However, the above averment is not supported by any pleading or documents on record. In view of the above position, we find nothing wrong in the decision of the Tribunal. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- C.T. Ravikumar, Judge. DK. (True copy)