IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 451 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3838/2007 Dated 05/02/2007 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- V.V.MOHANKUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. V.R. VELAPPAN, NOW WORKING AS EMPLOYMENT OFFICER (VG) DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE,THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHRI.C.K.VISWANATHAN, IAS AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR REHABILITATION AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P. NANDAKUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON 20.1.2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.(C) No.451 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this Contempt of Court Case alleging willful non-compliance of the directions in Annexure A judgment. The respondent has filed an affidavit and an additional affidavit taking the stand that orders have been passed pursuant to the directions of this court as Ext.R1(a) and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 2. The issue that was directed to be considered in Annexure A judgment is regarding the disposal of a statutory representation filed under Rule 27-B of the KS & SSR (Ext.P2 therein). The petitioners in the writ petition belong to the category of Employment Officers. A seniority list as on 1.1.1991 was published by the Director of Employment in respect of Junior Employment Officers/Junior Superintendents/Head Accountant/Investigator. The petitioners in the writ petition filed the representation aggrieved by the rank assigned to them. This court was pleased to direct the first respondent in the writ petition to consider Ext.P2 and similar representations filed by the petitioners under Rule 27B of the COC 451/2008 2 Rules and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Three months' time from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment was also fixed. 3. It is submitted in para 3 of the petition that even though a hearing was held on 21.4.2007, that was not conclusive and again another hearing was held on 16.6.2007. The petitioners allege in para 4 of the petition that on 24.10.2007 the respondent took a decision that seniority list of Junior Employment Officers published on 30.4.2005 may be set aside with a direction to the Director of Employment to prepare and publish revised seniority list in accordance with the direction of this court and as per rules. According to the petitioners, it is understood that on 28.10.2007 the Minister for Labour and Excise took the view that there is no need to cancel the list published by the Director of Employment. Again, it is alleged that the P & ARD advised to examine whether the promotions given to the departmental hands are in order and if necessary to revise the seniority list of Junior Employment Officers in the Department as per the directions contained in the judgment dated 21.10.2004 in O.P.No.5215/1997 and the judgment in Writ Appeal No.678/2005. Alleging that no orders have been passed till date of filing of the C.C.C.C, the petitioner moved this court. COC 451/2008 3 4. The respondent filed an affidavit dated 21.5.2008. In paragraphs 4 and 5 it is stated as follows: “4. It is submitted that the matter was examined in detail by Government in consultation with other departments and on the basis of the remarks of Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department. Vide Govt. Letter NO.22651/G1/07/LBR dated 18.12.2007, the Director of Employment was directed to examine whether the promotions given to departmental hands in the seniority list under challenge are in order and if necessary, to revise the seniority list of Junior Employment Officers in the department as per the directions contained in the judgment dated 21.10.2004 in O.P.No.5215 of 1997 and in the judgment dated 6..4.2005 in W.A.No.678 of 2005. 5. It is submitted that, since the reply in this regard furnished by the Director of Employment on 8.1.2008 was not satisfactory he was again directed to offer further remarks and report on specific details. This position was also intimated to the petitioners vide letter dated 10.3.2008.” It is pointed out in para 6 that final reply from the Director of Employment was received only on 28.3.2008 and immediately after receipt of this reply, Government passed orders as directed by this court. Annexure R1(a) has been produced. The respondent prayed for condoning the delay in passing the orders. The delay has been explained stating that the issue being complicated, was required to be examined in detail after considering the COC 451/2008 4 various aspects. 5. The petitioner has filed a reply producing Annexure E which contains the notes at various levels in the department prior to the decision being taken. Again, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent as directed by this court explaining various aspects in the decision making process and submitting that the decision in Annexure R1(a) has been arrived at after elaborate consideration at various levels. 6. Going by Annexure A judgment, what was directed was to consider Ext.P2 and other representations. The decision was to be taken by the authority. This court did not enter findings on the merits obviously since a statutory representation was directed to be disposed of. Annexure R1(a) is the resultant order. Thus, it can be seen that the directions in the judgment have been complied with. Of course, there was delay for which reasons have been pointed out also. Regarding the merits of the matter or the conclusions arrived at, this court in this proceedings, cannot obviously consider. The question is whether the dates of occurrence of vacancies have been properly assessed. The petitioner has a grievance that the directions contained in the judgment in Writ Appeal No.678/2005 have not been adhered to while preparing the seniority list. It is up to the petitioner to challenge Annexure R1(a) in appropriate proceedings. I am satisfied that COC 451/2008 5 there is no willful disobedience of the orders passed by this court. Hence, no orders are required to proceed with the Contempt of Court Case. It is accordingly dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/