IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 629 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35796/2007 Dated 04/12/2007 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER ---------------------------- K.M.SUSEELA, W/O.M.C.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, L 4, GALAXY NOORAIN APARTMENT, PUNATHIL PADAM ROAD, EDAPPALLI, ERNAKULAM 24. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1: ----------------------------- JIJY THOMSON, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION (A)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Cont.Case (C). 629/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader. I have perused the affidavit filed by the respondent and the note files leading to the orders dated 4.2.2008, by which the Government rejected the petitioner’s request for provisional promotion. 2. It is apparently clear that the directions issued in the judgment have not been complied with as such. The direction was to pass an order as regards the petitioner’s request for provisional promotion, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is due to retire on 31.12.2007. The direction was clear that order should be passed at any rate, before 24.12.2007 and keeping in mind Exts.P2 and P3 orders as also Ext.P1 circular. It is admitted that orders were not passed within the time frame fixed by this Court and order came to be passed only under Annexure- R1(a) dated 4.2.2008. C.O.C.629/2008 2 3. According to the petitioner, even the copy of the said order was not communicated to him and copy was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner only after the Contempt of Court case was moved. Perusal of the note files indicates that the decision on the petitioner’s request was tentatively taken on 15.12.2007 and it met with the approval of the respondent on 22.12.2007. If this was supposed to be placed before the concerned Minister or even the Chief Minister, it was the responsibility of the competent authority to see that orders were passed within the time frame fixed by this Court. If it were not possible to do so, motion should have been made before this Court seeking extension of time. Petitioner is therefore, correct in saying that there is non compliance of the directions issued by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also right in saying that though in the judgment, this Court had directed the Government to bear in mind Exts.P2 and P3 orders in the writ petition, namely the orders by which C.O.C.629/2008 3 provisional promotion was granted to 22 other persons in the same Department, the present order dated 4.2.2008 does not even refer to the said orders. When a direction was issued to take a decision bearing in mind what this Court perceives as similar instances, the Authority is bound to, at least, refer to those instances which merited a consideration by this Court while taking a decision on the request made by the petitioner. But for the fact that the petitioner had retired from service on 31.12.2007 and the decision, ultimately taken at the highest levels of the Government, did not accept the request of the petitioner and no purpose will be served by the petitioner pursuing the matter by way of frontal challenge against the order dated 4.2.2008, I would have proceeded with the Contempt of Court case as such. But I agree with the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the respondent in the Contempt of Court case may not really be the person who has precipitated the current state of affairs. This is hardly any solace to the petitioner. C.O.C.629/2008 4 5. In the result, Contempt of Court case is closed. But this is on condition that the petitioner is paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost within one month from today. Department of Co-operation shall pay the cost and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it will be appropriate to direct the recovery of the said costs from the respondent himself. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs