IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 183 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.562/2009 Dated 04/02/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): 1ST PETITIONER ----------------------------- ULLAS.N.P, S/O.PARAMESWARAN.K,AGED 40, METER READER,ELECTRICAL SECTION,KSEB,VAZHOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 -------------------------------- 1. G.SREEKUMAR,AGED 47,(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),FUNCTIONING AS THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. B.KRISHNAMMA, AGED 54,(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),FUNCTIONING AS THE CHIEF ENGINEER(H.R.M), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. BY S.C. SHRI ASHOK M. CHERIAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON 19.3.2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.(C) No. 183 of 2009 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Alleging disobeyance of Annexure A Order, this Contempt of Court Case is filed. The same is an interim order passed in Writ Petition No.562/2009. The order is dated 4.2.2009. After considering the respective contentions of the parties in various writ petitions, this court directed the respondents to maintain status-quo as on that date. The petitioner is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.562/2009. 2. It is alleged that in violation of Annexure A order, the Board by an order dated 3.2.2009 published the list of 424 Meter Readers and engaged them as Sub Engineer (Electrical) trainees on certain conditions. It is contended that this order was passed in a hasty manner subsequent to the interim order passed by this court, but pre-dated to escape from other consequences. It is pointed out that in violation of Annexure A order, various persons were engaged on 6.2.2009 and thereafter. 3. As directed by this court, the second respondent has filed an affidavit. It is pointed out that 424 vacancies of Sub Engineers are lying vacant under 60% quota for promotion from the feeder category of Meter COC 183/2009 2 Reader, as Meter Readers who have completed five years of qualifying service are not presently available. The KSEB took a decision on 18.10.2008 to implement the decision of the Board dated 20.9.2008 according sanction to fill up 150 vacancies of Sub Engineers through Public Service Commission from the present rank list subject to the condition that all arising vacancies by retirement for promotion shall be adjusted to be filled up against 60% quota till the entire quota is met. This was later decided to be kept in abeyance considering the opinion of recognized trade unions. It was decided to engage Meter Readers having three years experience as Sub Engineers (Electrical) purely on temporary basis without giving any lien to the post of Sub engineer (Electrical) after imparting mandatory training in matters connected with the duties to be carried out by the Sub Engineer. The same is produced as Annexure R2(a). It is challenged in various writ petitions. It is averred in para 5 that prior to the passing of Annexure A order, on 3.2.2009, an order has been passed by the second respondent enlisting the Meter Readers selected to be engaged temporarily as Sub Engineer (Electrical). This was published in the official website of the Board also. It is explained that without knowing the interim order passed by this court on 4.2.2009, the second respondent issued a circular letter to all Deputy Chief Engineers (Electrical Circles, in the morning of 5.2.2009 on the modalities for implementing the decision to COC 183/2009 3 engage Meter Readers as Sub Engineer (Electrical) Trainees. It is explained in para 6 that after receiving the information regarding the interim order Annexure A, by a fax message of the legal Law Officer of the Board all the Deputy Chief Engineers in Electrical Circles were informed by phone not to proceed further for implementation of the order thus issued. The second respondent denies the allegation that the order dated 3.2.2009 was issued in the night of 4.2.2009. It is explained that this order was issued prior to the passing of the interim order by this court on 4.2.2009. It is also explained that a formal circular was issued on 6.2.2009 after the interim order was communicated, not to proceed further for implementation of the earlier order to engage Meter Readers as Sub Engineer (electrical) Trainees. 4. The second respondent has made available the relevant files also in the matter. The writ petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Annexure D order was not passed on 3.2.2009 which is evident from the fact that it was published in the website of the Board only in the afternoon of 5.2.2009. If it was published on 3.2.2009, it would have been published on 4.2.2009. It is thus contended that this order is issued with a prior date after coming to know of the order to maintain status-quo. 6. Going by the averments contained in the affidavit filed by the COC 183/2009 4 second respondent and the relevant files made available, there is nothing to show that the order Annexure D was passed after Annexure A order was passed by this court. The files contain various orders passed in the matter. On 6.2.2009 the Deputy Chief Engineers of Electrical Circles were directed not to proceed further for the implementation of the order Annexure D. This shows that action was taken immediately after getting details of the interim order passed by this court on 4.2.2009. There is nothing to show otherwise and to doubt the bonafides of the second respondent also. 7. At any rate, the allegations and materials are insufficient to hold that there had been wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this court to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. I am not satisfied therefore that the respondents have committed any wilful violation of the orders passed by this court warranting action under the Contempt of Courts Act. Hence, the CCC is dismissed as not entertainable. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/