IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 163 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14330/2009 Dated 28/05/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- A.PUSHPALATHA, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT THALORE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- MERCY GEORGE, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O.VARKEY, SECRETARY, KALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.227, KALLOOR, THRISSUR. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Contempt Case (C) NO. 163 OF 2010 (S) ============================ Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T By Annexure 1 judgment, all that this Court did was to declare that the petitioner was eligible to have the benefit of relaxation in qualification w.e.f. 01/04/2003, the date on which a resolution to that effect was passed by the Society. On the basis of the said judgment, petitioner claimed promotion as Chief Accountant from the date on which her junior was promoted, namely, 1/10/2005 and also subsequent promotions. By Annexure II, she was promoted as Chief Accountant and that too from 1/5/2009. She says that the effective date of promotion granted as per Annexure II, will not satisfy the directions in Annexure 1 judgment. 2. I am not persuaded to agree. As already seen, only the effective date of relaxation is declared in Annexure 1 judgment. If on the basis of that declaration, a benefit is claimed and the benefit granted is unsatisfactory, it is for the petitioner to pursue her remedies against the latter order. Such a matter does not arise in a proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Contempt petition is therefore dismissed ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp