Narayanan Namboothiri v. B Sreenivas

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/9TH ASHADHA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 241 of 2015 (S) --------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT DATED 04-11-2014 IN WP(C) 2553/2013 ......

PETITIONER(S)/PETITONER:

---------------------------------------- NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI V., AGED 60, S/O.VISHNU NAMBOOTHIRI, LECTURER SELECTION GRADE (RETIRED), S.D.COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA RESIDING AT NALANDA, SANATHANAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 003.

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

------------------------------------------------

1. B. SREENIVAS, IAS, (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

2. M.NANDAKUMAR, IAS, (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

msv/

Con.Case(C).No. 241 of 2015 (S) --------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, WHICH WAS MARKED AS EXT.P9 IN THE WRIT PETITION, BY WHICH THE 1ST RESPONDENT HAS DENIED THE BENEFIT (G.O.(RT) NO.2163/12/H.EDN. DTD.10.10.2012). ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2553 OF 2013 DTD.4.11.2014.

ANNEUXRE AI: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.10.3.2015. ANNEUXRE AII: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.10.3.2015. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.465/2015/H.EDN. DTD.10.3.2015. //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE Msv/

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.O(C) No. 241 of 2015 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of June, 2015

JUDGMENT

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that substantial amount has been paid by the petitioner. Recording the said submission, the contempt case is closed reserving the petitioner's right to approach the competent forum if there is any subsisting grievance.

Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE krj