IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 103 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2718/2007 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KOTTAPPURATHU VEEDU, P.O. ANAYADI, VIA SOORANAD, QUILON DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ISSAC GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.J. MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 59, S/O.JOSEPH, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (B) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TIRVANDRUM (PRESENTLY WORKING AS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM) BY G.P. SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 6/02/2009, THE COURT ON 12/2/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.(C) No.103 of 2009-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT This Contempt of Court Case is filed alleging that there is willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A2 judgment. 2. While the petitioner was working as Superintendent in District Jail, Trivandrum, he sought promotion to the post of Central Prison Superintendent. He approached this court by filing Writ Petition No.2718/2007 for a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders in the light of Ext.P6 communication produced therein sent by the Director General of Police (Prisons) to the Addl. Chief Secretary to Government. This court directed the second respondent to consider Ext.P7 taking into consideration Ext.P6 as well and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. This judgment is dated 24.1.2007. Annexure A3 is the order passed in compliance with the same, which is dated 13.3.2007. The representation was rejected by stating that since the provisional promotion to a sensitive post like Superintendent, Central Prison is not advisable without the recommendation of the DPC, his request for provisional COC 103/2009 2 promotion as Superintendent, Central Prison is declined. 3. According to the petitioner, while rejecting the representation, Ext.P6 produced in the writ petition was not considered. Thus, there is non- compliance of the directions in the judgment amounting to contempt of court. In Annexure A3, one E. Sudheer, Joint Secretary has signed the order which according to the petitioner, is disrespect towards this court. Annexure A3 defeats his fundamental right and he was also holding a sensitive post. A clearance by the DPC is not necessary for those who are retiring within six months. Again, he submitted Annexure A4 representation. 4. The petitioner is relying upon Annexures A5, A5(1), A6, etc. which are orders issued by the concerned departments granting provisional promotions to different personnel to show that even in sensitive posts the Government have been granting provisional promotion and therefore the reasons stated in Annexure A3 cannot be supported. Annexure A8 is an order whereby one Shri N. Sasidharan, Superintendent, Open Prison, Nettukaltheri, was granted retrospective promotion after retirement which is also pointed out as an instance of wilful disobedience of this court. According to the petitioner, he was entitled for such a promotion. Annexure A10 is the last representation submitted by the petitioner informing the COC 103/2009 3 respondents about the non-compliance of the judgment. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The question is whether there is any wilful disobedience of the judgment passed by this court as per Annexure A2. It is true that the second respondent was directed to consider Ext.P7 therein after taking into consideration Ext.P6 as well. Ext.P6 was a report sent by the Director General of Police (Prisons) to the Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government. There is nothing to show that the Government was restrained from taking an independent decision. The decision reflected in Annexure A3 is a conscious one and it cannot be said that the grant of provisional promotion will be an automatic consequence of the directions contained in Annexure A2. In any view of the matter, the representation has been disposed of. The orders produced by the petitioner will not show that there is any wilful disobedience by not granting him promotion. The circumstances under which those orders have been passed cannot advance the case of the petitioner in support of the plea that the respondents have committed contempt of this court. The remedy of the petitioner was to challenge Annexure A3 at the appropriate time, if he is aggrieved by the denial of such promotion. 7. Further, going by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the COC 103/2009 4 present CCC is filed beyond the period of one year. Annexure A2 judgment is dated 24.1.2007, Annexure A3 order is dated 13.2.2007 and this CCC is filed only on 22.1.2009. 8. It is well settled that it is upto this court to consider whether any action is required to be taken on a plea raised by a party alleging contempt on the part of the respondent. Applying that test, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to initiate action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondent. I am not entertaining this CCC. It is accordingly dismissed (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/