IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 682 of 2011(S) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15814/2011 Dated 13/06/2011 ....................................................................................................................................... PETITIONER : --------------------- R.SREEKUMAR, INSPECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, UNIT DEPOT, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SRI.TOM JOSE, FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, MANAGING DIRECTOR-IN-CHARGE, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SRI.G.ANILKUMAR, ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, NOW PROMOTED AS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. SRI.G. ANILKUMAR, FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, UNIT DEPOT, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC FOR R1 TO R3 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/- Con.Case(C).No. 682 of 2011(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A : COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 06.06.2011 AND SERVED IT ON THE PETITIONER ON 22.06.2011. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE R1(A) : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PL.10/000380/2011 DATED 23.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DSV/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- Cont. Case (C)No.682 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 16th November, 2011 JUDGMENT This contempt case has been filed alleging willful disobedience with the directions issued by this Court in the interim order dated 13.6.2011 in W.P.(C)No.15814 of 2011. As per the interim order dated 13.6.2011, a specific direction has been issued to respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to continue in the post which he was then holding or against which he was accommodated. Evidently, pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was permitted to continue in the post only after obtaining further orders from the Managing Director. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents I do not think it necessary to proceed any further with this proceedings. A statement has also been filed in this contempt petition in which it has been stated that the order has been complied with. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the break on account of the delay in implementing the direction in the order dated 13.6.2011 would not constitute any service break and appropriate Cont.Case(C).No.682/2011 2 orders regularizing the said service as duty would be issued. This is recorded and accordingly, this contempt petition is closed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS