IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 341 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3704/2010 Dated 15/02/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- KARTHIYAYANI.K,W/O.LATE VASAN, AGED 55, DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA RESPONDENT(S): IST RESPONDENT ----------------------------- SMT.NIVEDITHA P.HARAN I.A.S,(HUSBAND'S NAME AND AGE KNOWN TO PETITIONERS),PRINCIPAL SECRE TARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont.Case (Civil) No. 341 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 3704 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T As per the judgment in WP(C) No. 3704/2010 a direction was issued to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for temporary promotion under 31(a)(i) of Part II KS&SSR and also in terms of Ext.P6. The said direction was issued taking into account the fact that the petitioners are due to retire from service on 31.3.2010. It is alleging non-compliance with the directions issued as per the said judgment dated 15.2.2010 that this contempt case has been filed. 2. When this matter has taken up for admission, the learned Government Pleader made available a copy of a Government Order (G.O.(Rt)No.1237/2010/RD dated 17.3.2010). It would reveal that it was in compliance with the direction in the judgment, Government have issued the said order. It would again reveal that after such consideration the claims of the petitioners have been rejected citing the reasons CCC No.341 of 2010 : 2 : that the seniority list pertaining to the category to which the petitioners belonging is not so far been finalized. True that there is some delay in passing the order. However, considering the fact that the directions in the judgment dated 15.2.2010 have been complied with, this contempt case is closed. It is made clear that in case the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 17.3.2010, they will be at liberty to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge