IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No. 2222 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.8278/2002 DATED 11/12/2002 .................... APPELLANT(S):RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HEAD OFFICE, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING, 87-MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001, REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G ROAD, KOCHI-11. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE I, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE SR.BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- JAYAPRABHA, D/O.THE LATE M.K.PRABHAKARAN, ARCHANA,SANTHIPURAM P.O., NEDUNGADAPALLY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI. S.SUBHASH CHAND THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. ================================ W.A.No.2222 of 2008 =============================== Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T KOSHY, J. The appellant challenges the judgment passed in Contempt Case 1000 of 2005. The daughter of an employee who died in harness applied for compassionate appointment before the appellant-company and since that was not granted, she filed a writ petition before this Court. By judgment in O.P.No.8278 of 2002, respondent in the writ petition was directed to consider her prayer in the next coming recruitment process. A contempt petition was filed stating that two persons were recruited in the company without considering the claim of the petitioner. Contempt petition was closed with a direction that the petitioner should be appointed in the next arising vacancy without awaiting for general recruitment. An appeal was filed against that order as Contempt Appeal (C) 3 of 2006. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail other remedies. Thereafter, review petition was filed before the Division Bench of this Court. That petition was closed, leaving freedom to the petitioners to file regular writ appeal against the judgment of the W.A.No.2222 of 2008 2 learned Single Judge. Writ appeal could have been filed against the Single Judge's judgment but Contempt Appeal is filed. It is contended by the counsel for respondent that against an order in contempt petition, a writ appeal cannot be filed, at the maximum only an appeal from the judgment in the writ petition with a delay condonation petition can be filed. According to the appellant, they are not aggrieved by the original judgment, where it only directed consideration of the mater at the tine of next recruitment. It is pointed out by the appellant that no further direction can be issued while disposing of contempt petition. Here, the contempt petition was not even admitted and charge was not framed and issuance of the order itself was not correct. The counsel for the appellant relied on decisions of the Apex Court in Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2004 (7) SCC 261) as well as Union of India and others v. Draupadi Behara and another (2005 (2) SCC 342). However, it is argued that if such an order is passed in the contempt petition, proper remedy of the petitioner was to file an appeal against the judgment in contempt case and if appeal is dismissed for availing other remedy, appellant could have approached the Supreme Court. But, against the direction of the Division Bench allowing the appellant to file writ appeal, no appeal W.A.No.2222 of 2008 3 is also filed by the respondent and that judgment has become final and it is not proper for us to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. Considering the direction in the judgment in writ petition and contempt case, we are of the view that only direction in the contempt petition is that she should be appointed in the next arising vacancy without awaiting for general recruitment in the vacancy allotted for compassionate appointment. It is the case of the appellant that no appointment was done in the company for general vacancy. Appointment made in the reserved vacancy is not violation of the judgment in the writ petition and it is not contempt. Direction issued by the learned Single Judge will not obligate the company to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy reserved for SC/ST and the direction will be applicable only when recruitment is made in the vacancy earmarked for compassionate appointment or during general recruitment. With the above clarification this writ appeal is disposed of. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE bkn/-