IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1357 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.11047/2008 Dated 06/08/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.SEBASTIAN,ASST.FOREMAN, VIJNANAMUDRANAM PRESS, THE STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES KERALA, NALANDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 3. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DR. P.K.POKKER,FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED 52 YEARS, THE DIRECTOR, STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES KERALA, NALANDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. P.K.VIJAYA MOHANAN, STANDING COUNSEL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Cont. Court (C) No. 1357 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 10th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner alleges non-compliance with Annexure I judgment. The operative portion of Annexure I judgment reads thus: “. . . . . I am inclined to hold that the petitioner is a fully qualified Assistant Foreman eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of proof Reader Grade I. The post of Proof Reader Grade I is remaining vacant from 1-6-2006. A person has been merely put in charge of that post without making any promotion, which itself could be against the interest of the efficiency of the organisation itself. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that appropriate steps should be taken to make regular appointment to that vacant post. The petitioner is due to retire shortly within less than a year. That being so, it is only appropriate that the claim of the petitioner for promotion be considered in accordance with Exts.P2 and P6 and if the petitioner is eligible for such promotion in accordance with the special rules, the petitioner be given promotion. The above exercise shall be taken up and completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I once again make it clear that the want of the ratification of the recruitment rules by the Government or of the promotion of the petitioner as Assistant Foreman shall not be a ground for denying promotion to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed as above.” 2. The petitioner himself has now produced Annexure III order passed by the respondent, wherein it has been stated that although in respect of implementation of the judgment, clarification had been requested for from the Government, since the clarification had not been received, in order to comply with the directions in the judgment, the petitioner is promoted as Proof Reader Grade I with effect from 6-8-2009 provisionally. The petitioner contends that this itself is contempt of court since this Court had directed promotion of the petitioner with effect from 1-6-2006. 3. Standing counsel for the State Institute of Languages points out that there is no direction in the judgment to promote the COC No. 1357/09 -: 2 :- petitioner at all and in any event, there is no direction for promotion with effect from 1-6-2006. Therefore, the petitioner has been promoted provisionally with effect from the date of the judgment. He also submits that although with a petition to condone delay, the Government has filed an appeal against Annexure I judgment. After reading my judgment and Annexure III order, I find merit in the contentions of the respondent. Now that the petitioner has been promoted provisionally with effect from the date of the judgment, I do not think that there is any deliberate attempt to disobey the directions in my judgment. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.