IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 88 of 2008(S) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19/2008 Dated 02/01/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------- N.DINESH BABU, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), GENERATION SUB DIVISION, MOOLAMATTOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN. 685 589. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 2 & 4 ------------------------------ 1. DR.G.PAVITHRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PRESENTLY WORKING AS CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M), K.S.E.B., VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 4. 2. MR.J.BABURAJ, AGED 48 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GENERATION CIRCLE, K.S.E.B., MOOLAMATTOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN.685 589. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008 ALONG WITH CC.NO.90/08, CC.NO.91/08, R.P.NO.139/08, R.P.NO.140/08 & RP NO. 138 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J --------------------------------- C.C.(c)NO.88/08 & R.P.NO.139/08 IN W.P.C.NO.19/2008, C.C.(C)NO.90/08 & R.P.NO.140/08 IN W.P.C.NO.31/2008 & C.C.(C)NO.91/08 & R.P.NO.138/08 IN W.P.C.NO.15/2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Contempt of course cases are instituted by the respective petitioners alleging that this court had in the common judgment dated 02/01/2008 issued a direction that petitioners shall not be reverted from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer till the revision to be filed by them as against the order passed by the respective Chief Engineer is heard and decision taken thereon. But the allegation is that notwithstanding the said direction issued by this court, the concerned Executive Engineer had reverted the petitioners. The contempt of court case was instituted in all these cases on 15/01/2008 and on instructions learned counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board submitted that the judgment in the writ petition was rendered on 02/01/2008, but the petitioners had been reverted as early as on 28/12/2007 in implementation of the order impugned in these writ petitions bearing the same date. CC.88/08 & connected cases 2 Since there is a direction in the judgment that reversion shall not take effect till a decision is taken by the Board in the manner as already indicated in the judgment, and according to the Board, the crucial fact that petitioners had already been reverted even prior to the institution of the writ petition could not be brought to the notice of this court, the board has filed a petition for review of the judgment to the extent to which this court had stayed reversion pursuant to the orders impugned. Since the same issue is involved in all these cases and since the fate of the contempt of court cases, at this stage, is dependent on orders to be passed in the concerned review petition, all these cases have been heard together and they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. The only aspect involved in the review petitions relates to the direction by this court that the petitioners shall not be reverted pending a decision by the Board on the representation/revision to be field by the petitioners against the impugned decision taken by the Chief Engineer. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners in all these cases have submitted a representation challenging the order passed by the Chief Engineer within the time stipulated in the judgment. CC.88/08 & connected cases 3 3. Standing counsel for the Electricity Board submits that as could be seen from Annexure R1(a) in all these cases, the petitioners had actually been reverted on 28/12/2007 itself and they were relieved from their duties in the respective stations on the said day. This assertion is controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. I do not think it necessary for this court to conduct a detailed enquiry as to whether the order of reversion had taken effect prior to the petitioners approaching this court. In the nature of the direction issued by this court, essentially requiring the Board to pass fresh orders on the claim of the petitioners, such an enquiry may not be appropriate or necessary. If the version given by the KSEB is to be accepted and since prima facie I do not think it appropriate to reject the version given by the KSEB, a statutory authority, I am inclined to hold that the reversion of the petitioners had taken place prior to them approaching this court on 01/01/2008. But I note that there is no material before me at this stage to clinchingly show that petitioners were aware of Annexure R1(a) prior to them approaching this court. CC.88/08 & connected cases 4 5. In the result, the judgment dated 02/01/2008 is reviewed to the extent to which this court had stayed the reversion of the petitioners from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer pending a decision by the Board on the representation filed by the petitioners as directed in the said judgment. But I think it is appropriate to clarify two aspects at this juncture. Firstly the fact that petitioners were reverted prior to this court passing the judgment on 02/01/2008 or even prior to petitioners approaching this court shall not in any manner stand in the way of their claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and continuance in the said post being independently considered by the Board as directed by this court in judgment dated 02/01/2008. In other words, reversion of the petitioners pursuant to the impugned order shall not influence an independent decision on the claim of the petitioners as directed in the judgment. The second aspect relates to the period from 02/01/008 till today. Apparently the petitioners have been prosecuting the contempt of court cases and have also been prosecuting their request to continue in the post of Assistant Engineer on the strength of the direction contained in the judgment dated 02/01/2008. I am of CC.88/08 & connected cases 5 the view that petitioners apparently thought that they are entitled to continue as Assistant Engineer as permitted by this court in the judgment dated 02/01/2008. Now that this court has clarified the said aspect only today, in my view the absence of the petitioners from duty from 02/01/2008 till today shall not by itself visit the petitioners with any adverse consequences. 6. In the result, by reviewing the judgment as aforesaid mentioned, I make it clear that the period from 01/01/2008 till today shall be treated as eligible leave in the first instance. But if in computing the said period from 01/01/2008 till today the eligible leave of each one of the petitioners stands exhausted, the balance period shall be treated as duty for all purposes. This is on condition that petitioners make available themselves for duty in the reverted post without any further delay, at any rate not later than 06/02/2008. 7. In view of the fact that the judgment dated 02/01/2008 stands reviewed in the manner indicated above, the Contempt of Court case proceedings are closed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners Dr.K.P.Satheesan points out that in the case of W.P.(C)No.19/2008 and CC.88/08 & connected cases 6 R.P.No.139/08 arising therefrom, petitioner Sri.N.Dinesh Babu was working as Sub Engineer prior to his promotion as Assistant Engineer and he was reverted to the post of Meter Reader. Learned standing counsel for the KSEB submits that obviously it is a mistake and the same will be corrected immediately. Let the petitioner therefore report before the office where he was functioning prior to his promotion as Assistant Engineer within the time frame as indicated above. Contempt of Court Cases are closed and Review Petitions are disposed of. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) sv. CC.88/08 & connected cases 7