IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 615 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8142/2010 Dated 18/03/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WP(C) ---------------------------------- SRI.N.RAVICHANDRAN,S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 42 YEARS,CLASS IV,SUB TREASURY,KOLLENGODE, RESIDING AT PUTTANIPURA HOUSE,MARUTHAAPARA, VANDITHAVALAM,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT IN WP(C) -------------------------------------- E.K.PRAKASH,S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,AGED 53 YEARS,THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES,OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER (FINANCE) FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI DILIP MOHAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case (Civil) No. 615 of 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 8142 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T This Court as per judgment dated 18.3.2010 directed the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal preferred by the petitioner under Rule 22 of the Kerala Civil Services(Classification, control and appeal) Rules, 1960. A decision in terms of the judgment was directed to be taken within a period of three weeks from 18.3.2010. It is alleging non-compliance with the aforesaid direction that this Contempt Case has been filed. 2. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent as directed by this Court. Along with the affidavit, the respondent has produced minutes of the Departmental Vigilance Review Committee held on 7.4.2010 as Annexure R1 (b). It would reveal that pursuant to the direction of this Court in the above captioned writ petition, the review committee has reviewed the order of suspension and decided to continue the status quo. It is thus obvious that in Cont. Case(C) No.615/2010. : 2 : compliance with the direction, they have conducted a review of the order of suspension. In the light of the above facts revealed from Annexure.R1 (b), the above contempt case is closed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in the appropriate proceedings in case, he is aggrieved by the said action on the part of the respondent. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P. A to Judge