IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1713 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.31521/2008 Dated 12/11/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEEJA.S., AGED 31, D/O.RAVEENDRAN, NURSE, M.C.H.CENTRE, KARITHARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHAJAHAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM AND THE CHAIRMAN, MINING AREA WELFARE BOARD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Contempt Case (C) No.1713 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31521 of 2008 has filed this Contempt of Court Case, alleging that the respondent herein, the District Collector, Kollam, who is the first respondent in said writ petition has not complied with the interim order passed by this Court in the said writ petition. 2. W.P.(C) No.31521 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner herein aggrieved by the fact that she is not permitted to attend to her duties as Nurse in the Maternity and Child Health Centre, Karithura, Kollam, run by the Mining Area Welfare Board. In the said writ petition, the petitioner inter alia contended that a copy of the order passed by the District Collector, Kollam, who is also the Chairman of the Mining Area Welfare Board, has not been served on her. When the writ petition came up for admission on 12.11.2008, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the service COC. No.1713 of 2008 2 of the petitioner was terminated by the District Collector, Kollam, who is also the Chairman of the Mining Area Welfare Board, and that the decision taken by the District Collector was also ratified by the Board. The learned Government Pleader also undertook that the Chairman of Mining Area Welfare Board will communicate a copy of his order and the decision of the Board ratifying it, to the petitioner within one week from 12.11.2008. In this Contempt of Court Case, the petitioner submits that even as on 25.11.2008, a copy of the order and the decision of the Board have not been served on her. 3. When this Contempt of Court Case came up for hearing yesterday, it was adjourned to this day, so as to enable the learned Government Pleader to get instructions and also to ensure that a copy of the order passed by the District Collector and a copy of the decision taken by the Board are served on the petitioner. Today, when the case was again taken up for hearing, Sri.J.Omprakash, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a copy of the letter dated 1.11.2008 COC. No.1713 of 2008 3 sent by the District Collector to the Medical Officer, Maternity and Child Health Centre, Karithura, to the effect that the contract employment of the petitioner has been terminated, was served on the petitioner yesterday. He further submitted that a copy of the decision taken by the Board has however not been served on the petitioner. On the said submission being made, the learned Government Pleader made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a copy of the decision taken by the Board. In these circumstances, no further orders are called for in this Contempt of Court Case and it is accordingly closed. However, I wish to observe that the respondent in this Contempt of Court Case who is the District Collector, Kollam, and in that capacity the Chairman of the Mining Area Welfare Board, does not appear to have shown any inclination to comply with the undertaking made before this Court on 12.11.2008 in W.P.(C) No.31521 of 2008. Irrespective of the question whether the petitioner has a right to continue in service or not, as a person aggrieved by the decision taken by the District Collector, COC. No.1713 of 2008 4 she had every right to be served with a copy of the order. It was taking note of the fact that the order passed by the District Collector and the decision taken by the Board ratifying it have not been communicated to the petitioner, that the learned Government Pleader undertook on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition, to communicate copies of the order passed by the Chairman and the decision taken by the Board to the petitioner. The respondents in the writ petition, including the District Collector, Kollam, did not however choose to honour the said undertaking and the petitioner was driven to the necessity of filing this Contempt of Court Case to get a copy of the order, which adversely affects her rights. The District Collector, Kollam, the respondent herein, appears to be oblivious to the rights of citizens to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which as held by the Apex Court is a basic structure of the constitution and cannot be abridged or taken away. The petitioner has, due to the attitude of the respondent, been forced to incur avoidable expenditure by filing this Contempt of Court Case to get a copy of the order passed by the District Collector, COC. No.1713 of 2008 5 Kollam, which adversely affects her. The conduct of the respondent in not communicating to the petitioner the order passed by him terminating her service, is to say the least unbecoming of an Officer of the Indian Administrative Service, holding office as District Collector. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.