IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1550 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------------- (JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.728/2010 DATED 26/03/2010) ....... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. SREEDEVI.S.R., AGED 28, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.B., LECTURER IN COMMERCE, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, KATTAKADA. 2. NISHAD.N.K., AGED 28, S/O.NEELAKANTAN, LECTURER IN COMMERCE, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, KATTAKADA. BY SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.JOHNSON T. JOHN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 3 & 5 --------------------------------------------- 1. KURUVILLA JOHN I.A.S., (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS) PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. BABU.P., (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS) DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM-691 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Con. Case (C) No.1550 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No. 728 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T This contempt case is filed complaining of non- compliance with the directions in the judgment dated 26.03.2010 in W.P. (C) No.728/2010. In that judgment I directed as follows: “The 2nd respondent shall consider the question of approval of the petitioner's appointments without reference to the fact that the course was sanctioned without additional financial commitment on the part of the Government and pass orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. On approval of the appointments, the Government shall pay salary to the petitioners without prejudice to the Government's right to challenge the approval or to take up the question of approval with the University, appropriately.” An affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that salary of the petitioners for the month of December, 2010 has already been released. It is further submitted that the arrears of salary for the period from 20.08.2010 to 30.11.2010 was sanctioned and paid to the Principal on 25.01.2011. It is submitted that the bill Con. Case (C) No.1550 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No. 728 of 2010 -2- was presented by the Principal only on 25.01.2011. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the December salary has been received. But he has no information regarding receipt of the arrears of salary. In the above circumstances, recording the averments in the affidavit of the 2nd respondent, this contempt case is closed, with liberty to the petitioners to seek restoration of the contempt case if the averment in the affidavit of the respondent is found to be incorrect. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/