IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1423 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.7055/2006 Dated 20/03/2009 ) PETITIONER/FIRST PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O. G.MADHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 45 YEARS, FOREMAN MECHANIC, D.M.O.(H) IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.SUDHEESH.A. ADV. SMT.C.V.BINDU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 7 AND 5: --------------------------------------------- 1. DR.P.PRABHAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE, PAY REVISION (IMPLEMENTATION,) CELL, LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MANOJ JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI N. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ............................................................................. C.O.C. No. 1423 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 7055 OF 2006 ......................................................................... Dated this the18th December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The learned Government Pleader appearing for the contemnors/respondents submits that the directions given by this Court vide judgment dated 20th March 2009 in W.P.(C) No.7055 of 2006 have been complied with and that a speaking order (as per G.O.(Rt)No.3447/2009/H&FWD dated 25.11.2009) has already been passed and communicated to the party concerned. A copy of the said order has also been produced with an affidavit sworn to by the second respondent, which has been filed before this Court today. 2. After hearing both the sides and going through the proceedings, this Court finds that the matter does not require to be proceeded with any further, in view of compliance reported. With regard to the grievance projected by the petitioner against C.O.C. No. 1423 OF 2009 2 the order now passed and produced as Annexure-R2(a), stating that it is not a speaking order and not fully in confirmity with the directions contained in the judgment, the remedy of the petitioner (if he is aggrieved) is to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings, if so advised. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the proceedings need not be pursued any further. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk