IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 972 of 2011(S) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23959/2011 Dated 02/09/2011 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------- M.SREEDHARAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.AMBADI, PREVENTIVE OFFICER, EXCISE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ T.SATHEESHKUMAR, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KASARAGOD-671 121. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.R.JAYA KRISHNAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs COC. NO. 972/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 02/09/2011 IN WPC. NO.23959/2011. ANNEXURE AII: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SHOWING RECEIPT OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE AIII: COPY OF THE INTIMATION, SUBMITTED BY THE SERVING OFFICER, DATED 03/09/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- Cont. Case (C)No.972 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 10th October, 2011 JUDGMENT It is alleging willful disobedience with the directions in Annexure AI order dated 2.9.2011 in W.P.(C)No.23959 of 2011 that this contempt case has been filed. When this matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader submitted that, subsequently, the petitioner was permitted to continue in the present station itself in terms of Annexure AI order. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that despite Annexure A1 order and his reporting for duty, for about one month, the petitioner was not actually permitted to sign in the attendance register and he was not given the salary for the said month. He was also not given the Festival Allowance. How the said period should be treated and also the entitlement of the petitioner to salary will be decided in the writ petition itself. Recording the submission that the interim order has been complied with, this contempt case is closed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS