IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 408 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8569/2004 Dated 08/12/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.VELUTHAKUNJU, CHARUVILAYIL HOUSE, CHITTOOR.P.O., AGALI, ATTAPPADI, NOW WORKING AS SLR, PWD ROADS SECTION MANJERI. BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.ANIYANKUNJU VARGHESE SRI.K.K.VIVEKANANDAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- SHRI. K.BABURAJ, (FATHERS NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION), PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: krj ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Contempt of Court Case NO. 408 OF 2011 ============================= Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.8569/2004 challenging the order rejecting his prayer for regularisation and seeking direction to the respondents to regularise him in service. That writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 8th of December, 2009 quashing Ext.P17 order and directing that fresh orders dealing with the claim of the petitioner shall be passed. In pursuance thereof, Annexure A8 order dated 3/7/2010 was passed. Complaining that the said order is in wilful disobedience of the directions in the judgment this petition has been filed. 2. A reading of the order shows that in pursuance to the directions of this Court, the respondent called for a report from the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Administration, under whom the petitioner was working, and that, it was based on the report so obtained, that the claim of the petitioner for regularisation has been turned down. The order now passed, cannot be said to be one passed in willful disobedience of the directions in the COC No.408/11 :2 : judgment, and if aggrieved, the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the same in appropriates proceedings. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that WP(C) No.10750/11 has already been filed aggrieved by the said order. Therefore, the contempt petition is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to prosecute the grievances in the aforesaid writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp