IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 91 of 2011(S) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP (C): ------------------------------------------------------ V.P.SAROJINI, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O. KORAN, PART-TIME SPEEPER, KUTTIPPURAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KUTTIPPURAM (PO), TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP (C): ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. NIVEDITHA P.HARAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. K.R. MURALEEDHARAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. A. SAKEER HUSSAIN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS THE THASILDAR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101. 4. M.C.MOHAN DAS IAS, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SMT ANTONY DOMINIC, J ........................................... CONT.CASE NO.91 OF 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF MARCH, 2011 JUDGMENT The allegation in the petition is of disobedience of Annexure I order. The prayer sought was to stay the termination of the petitioner and to direct the respondents to pay regular scale of pay to the petitioner including revised pay and allowances implemented by 2004 Pay Revision. By order dated 17.12.2009, interim order as prayed for was granted. 2. The learned Government Pleader points out that regular scale of pay as ordered by this Court has been paid to the petitioner from January 2010 in compliance with the interim order. 3. On the other hand, what the petitioner now contends is that she ought to have been paid the pay as ordered in the interim order, for the past period also. In my view, the interim order did not direct the respondents to pay arrears for the previous period and therefore I am not satisfied that by non payment of the amount as claimed, respondents have committed coc 91/2011 2 any disobedience of the interim order warranting proceedings to be initiated under the Contempt of Court Act. The contempt case is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE lgk