IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1688 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.9363/2006 Dated 31/07/2007 .................... PETITIONERS/ PETITIONER: -------------------------- JOSEPH GEORGE, S/O.C.D.VARKEY, AGED 36 YEARS, LECTURER IN LAW, ST.JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, MOOLAMATTOM, ARAKULAM P.O., IDUKKI 685 591, RESIDING AT CHETTISSERIL, NELLIMATTOM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: --------------------------------- 1. KURUVILLA JOHN I.A.S, AGE AND NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695 001. 2. K.SASIDHARAN I.A.S, AGE AND NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 033. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case. (C).No.1688 OF 2008-S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008 O R D E R petitioner in this contempt case had preferred W.P.(C). No.9363/2006 questioning the legality and correctness of the order of refusal of the Director of Collegiate Education to pay her salary and allowances attached to the post of Lecturer in Law despite the approval of her appointment by the Mahatma Gandhi University. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated July 31, 2007 with the following observations/directions: The above position has been yet again clarified by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.940/2007 and connected cases. It should be borne in mind by the Directorate that the University had approved the appointment after considering the entire aspects of the matter, particularly the workload in the course and also the fact that it was a newly opened course in a non-conventional subject. However, if the Directorate is of the opinion that any further clarifications are to be sought from the University in the matter, it will be open to the Directorate to do so. But he said process shall be completed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondents 1 and 2 shall ensure that appropriate orders in the 2 Cont.Case(C) No.1688/08 matter are issued sanctioning salary and allowances to the petitioner with entire arrears as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within an outer limit of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment”. 2. Since the direction contained in the judgment was not complied with within the stipulated time, the petitioner has preferred this petition under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. It is on record that the respondents had approached this Court praying for enlargement of time to comply with the orders of this Court. Accordingly, time was enlarged for compliance till April 26, 2008 as a last chance. In spite of the above indulgence shown by this Court, respondents did not take any steps to comply with the orders of this Court. It was thereafter that the petitioner had initiated the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. 4. When this petition came up for consideration, notice was ordered to the respondents directing them to appear in person on December 10, 2008. Today, two interlocutory applications have been filed by the respondents with a prayer to dispense with their personal appearance on the plea that 3 Cont.Case(C) No.1688/08 they have already complied with the directions contained in the judgment. 5. It is averred in the affidavit that in the light of the directions issued by this Court, the Government in letter No.34535/F3/2007/H.Edn dated 21.11.2008 has issued directions to the Director of Collegiate Education to disburse the salary to the petitioner and that the salary bill has already been counter signed by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam on November 29, 2008. 6. Obviously, the respondents have complied with the orders of this Court only after the petition for contempt has been filed. Though the learned Government Pleader submits that there was no willful disobedience, I am not at all satisfied with the acceptability of the said contention. Anyhow, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am inclined to allow the prayer. Since the directions contained in the judgment have already been complied with, the contempt of court case is closed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) 4 Cont.Case(C) No.1688/08 cl