IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 536 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2988/2009 Dated 27/02/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. LEENA PHILIPS,AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.GEORGE THARIAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE KOTTAMURI P.O.,CHANGANASSERY (UPSA) ST.JOHN'S HSS, ERAVIPEROOR 2. SOBI GEORGE, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS GEORGE,OLASSERY MANNIL, PURAMATTOM PO THIRUVALLA (LPSA ST.JOHN'S HSS, ERAVIPEROOR BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.YUSUF, AGED 55 YEARS, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER (FORMERLY) OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 2. VARGHESE N.JACOB, AGED 53 YEARS, PERSONAL ASSISTANT IN CHARGE OF DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRUVALLA, 3. M.LAILA, AGED 55 YEARS, ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PULLAD. 4. RAJEEV VARMA, AGED 46 YEARS SUPERINTENDENT IN CHARGE OF ASSISTANT EDUCATINAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PULLAD. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- Cont. Case (Civil) No. 536 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after this Contempt of Court Case was filed, salary and allowances of the second petitioner were disbursed. He submits that in the case of the first petitioner, salary and allowances for the period from 1.1.2008 to 14.7.2008 was not disbursed though salary for the remaining period was disbursed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have not complied with the directions issued by this Court in so far as it relates to the second petitioner. In my opinion, the respondents has substantially complied with the directions of this Court and it cannot be said that they have willfully violated the directions of this Court. Further, the entitlement of the first petitioner to receive salary for the period 1.1.2008 to 14.7.2008 requires an adjudication of the dispute raised in the writ petition. For these reasons, I hold that no orders are called for in this Contempt of Court Case. It is accordingly closed leaving open the petitioners’ entitlement to claim salary and allowances in the writ petition. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps