IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 Con.APP(C).No. 6 of 2011(S) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN COC.533/2009 DATED 20.12.2010 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.21557/2000 DATED 23.9.2005 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------- 1. C.V.GEORGE, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH VARKEY, WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR (IN-CHARGE)/JOINT DIRECTOR, EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY, KOCHI-682011. 2. RAJEEV KUMAR, DIRECTOR (IMSPE&Q/C), EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, 3RD FLOOR, NDYMCA CULTURAL CENTRE BUILDING, 1, JAI SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------ K.SIVARAMA PILLAI, PONMALIL HOUSE, KUTTAMPEROOR P.O., MANNAR, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. THIS CONTEMPT APPEAL (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & Antony Dominic, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Appeal (C) No. 6 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This appeal is preferred aggrieved by a judgment dated 20th December, 2010 in Cont. Case (C) No.533 of 2009, by the respondents therein. 2. The said contempt case was filed complaining that the judgment of this Court dated 23.9.2005 in O.P.No.21557 of 2000 which directed as follows: “There will be a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of Ext.P2 to the petitioner. The pay shall be revised as per Ext.P2 and the eligible benefits shall be disbursed within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.” is wilfully disobeyed. 3. It appears from the judgment under appeal that by the date of the judgment under appeal the above mentioned judgment dated 23rd September, 2005 in O.P.No.21557 of 2000 was fully complied with. But in view of the inordinate delay in complying with the said directions of this Court, a learned Judge of this Court thought it fit to award costs against the respondents though the contempt case itself Cont.Appeal (C) No.6 of 2011 - 2 - was closed. Hence this appeal. 4. The only submission made by Sri.P.Parameswaran Nair, learned Assistant Solicitor General, is that the respondents were pursuing the legal remedies by preferring a writ appeal against the judgment dated 23.9.2005, which was dismissed on 28.10.2008. Subsequently, the respondents sought a review of the said judgment unsuccessfully. Therefore there is no justification for awarding costs on the ground that there was an inordinate delay in complying with the orders of this Court. 5. Except a bald statement that such remedies were being pursued, no further information regarding the dates of filing of those proceedings nor any information regarding the fact whether there was any interim order passed during the pendency of either of the proceedings is available on record. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice Antony Dominic, Judge vns