IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 689 of 2011(S) ---------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37336/2008 DATED 10/02/2011 .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SMT.P.P. BABY, W/O. CHANDRAN THURUTHIYIL HOUSE, P.O PANNIKKODE KOZHIKODE DT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN, SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DR.R. VIJAYAKUMAR (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MR.SUBRATO BISWAS, IAS (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SECRETARY TO GOVT. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs Con.Case(C).No. 689 of 2011(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/02/2011 IN WP(C) NO.37336/2008. ANNEXURE 2: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contempt Case (C) No. 689 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains of non-compliance with the direction in Annexure I judgment. I directed the respondents therein to see that orders are passed regularising the service of the petitioner as part-time sweeper in the said dispensary in accordance with Ext. P 1 Government order and disburse the monetary benefits arising therefrom to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. The learned Government Pleader hands over a copy of the order passed by the Government in compliance with the said judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner . The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the regularisation has been ordered with effect from 9.2.2010. In the above circumstances, the contempt case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge that part of the order now passed restricting the date of regularization to 9.2.2010. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/