IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 852 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C).7140/2009 Dated 05/03/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP(C): ---------------------------------------- S.SOSAMMA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.A.GEORGEKUTTY, PART-TIME SWEEPER, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE OFFICE, ODANAVATTOM.P.O. KOLLAM DIST. BY MR.M.V.THAMBAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C): ------------------------------------------------ 1. DR.NIVEDITHA P.HARAN, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SHAJAHAN IAS, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 3. M.A.RAHIM, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY MR. A.J. VARGHESE, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------ Contempt Case (C) No.852 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains that the directions issued by this Court in Annexure I judgment have not been complied with while passing appropriate orders regarding regularization in service as well as payment of arrears. 2. An affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent stating that actions have been taken for creating a post of Part Time Sweeper and for regularization of the petitioner and for payment of arrears of salary. 3. In the additional affidavit, the order passed by the Government has been produced as Exhibit R2(b). The Government created a post of Part Time Sweeper on Rs.2300+DA per month (revised) at Odanavattom village office with effect from 11.11.2008, the date from which the office was shifted to the new building and to regularize the service of the petitioner against the post with effect from the same date. C.C(C) No.852/2009 2 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for regularization from an earlier date. The petitioner will be free to agitate the same by filing a fresh representation before the Government or by filing a writ petition. With liberty to do so, this contempt case is closed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp