IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1244 of 2011(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31874/2004 Dated 13/07/2010 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER --------------------- T.S.SUDHA, W/O.P.C.DILEEP, AGED 40 YEARS, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, THARBIYATH TRUST VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------- SMT.U.MINI, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686661. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.K. SAIDALAVI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2011THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dlk Con.Case(C).No. 1244 of 2011(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 31874/2004-T DATED 13.07.2010. ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO.B4/3508/10/K.DIS. DATED 14.10.2011 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. dlk C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- C.O.(C). No.1244 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT This contempt case has been filed alleging willful disobedience with the directions in judgment dated 13.7.2010 in W.P.(C).No.31874 of 2004. As per the said judgment, this Court directed the third respondent therein to issue orders regarding the consequential benefits. In compliance with the directions in the said judgment, the third respondent passed Annexure- II order dated 14.10.2011. A perusal of the said order would reveal that after considering the entitlement of the petitioner to consequential benefits, it was ordered thus:- “The appointment of Smt.Sudha T.S as UPSA from 14.10.99 in the promotion vacancy of Smt.Mini C.N, H.S.A has been approved retrospectively and salary has been paid upto 31.3.01 in the promotion vacancy of Smt.Sunimol M.M, H.S.A. But Smt. Marisha Paul. C has already drawn salary for the period from 1.4.01 to 30.6.03 in the post in which Smt.Sudha T.S, UPSA was later appointed. As such Smt.Sudha T.S., UPSA cannot claim salary again in that post.” 2. It is thus obvious that in compliance with the directions in the aforesaid judgment, the third respondent has passed an order in regard to the question of payment of consequential benefits. Therefore, there is no C.O.(C) 1244/11 2 basis for the contention that the respondent has committed contempt. Obviously, the respondent has passed an order relating the aforesaid aspect. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to close this contempt case without prejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioner to claim consequential benefits for the period from 1.4.01 to 30.6.03. In other words, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-II order, it will be open to her to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. Subject to the said observation, this contempt case is closed. C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) spc C.O.(C) 1244/11 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 C.O.(C) 1244/11 4