IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.P(C).No. 35560 of 2008(G) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.M.JAMEELAMMA, W/O.C.A.IBRAHIM RAWTHER, SEETHAKULATHU HOUSE, EZHUMATTOOR P.O., MALLAPPALY (LOWER GRADE ARABIC TEACHER, DEVASWOM BOARD LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, THIRUMULLAVARAM). BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SMT.M.P.MARY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANJIRAPPALLY. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD SCHOOLS/ SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, NANDHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB FOR R4 GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, ALONG WITH COC NO. 1744/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 35560 OF 2008 (G) & CONT.COURT CASE(C) NO.1744 OF 2008(S) =========================== Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order passed by the DPI directing recovery of 50% of the excess salary from the petitioner and another teacher. The main contention raised was that the said order runs counter to Ext.P3 judgment. It is on that basis that contempt case was also filed. 2. After this writ petition was admitted and notice was issued in the contempt petition, DPI has revoked Ext.P4 order and passed a fresh order dated 3/12/2008. 3. In view of the aforesaid developments, both the writ petition and contempt are closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the matter if she is aggrieved. The counsel for the petitioner pleaded for awarding costs. Considering the fact that the respondents themselves have corrected the mistake, I do not think it appropriate to pass such an order. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp