High Court of KeralaCon.Case(C)/345/2014closed

T.P.Stanly v. Ashok Singh

2015-01-19Honourable Mr.Justice K.Surendra Mohan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/29TH POUSHA, 1936 Con.Case(C).No. 345 of 2014 (S) IN WP(C).23576/2011 ----------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.23576/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21-03-2012 PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

-------------------------------------- T.P.STANLY, S/O.T.A.PAILY AGED 61 RETIRED AS AN OPERATOR FROM KERALA WATER AUTHORITY THANNIPPILLY HOUSE, MATHA NAGAR, KALOOR COCHIN - 682 017.

BY ADV. SRI.ALEX THANNIPPILLY RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN WP(C) :

--------------------------------------------------------------- ASHOK SINGH (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY JAL BHAVAN, VAZHUTHACADU, TRIVANDRUM PIN:695 033.

R BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Con.Case(C).No. 345 of 2014 (S) IN WP(C).23576/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE 1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.3.2012 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.23576/2011 ANNEXURE 2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 19.3.2013 RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :

EXT.R1(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KWA/JB/E5/8046/12 DATED 10.9.2012 /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE AV

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

------------------------------------ Cont.Case(C) No.345 of 2014 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2015

J U D G M E N T

In compliance with the order dated 25.03.2014, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent producing Ext.R1(a), copy of the proceedings issued in compliance with the direction of this Court contained in Annexure-1 judgment. The respondent has also expressed regret in not complying with the same within the time limit stipulated by this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.R1 (a) is illegal for the reason that, while other similarly situated employees have been granted the benefits, the petitioner has been denied the same.

3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced in this case for the reason that, this is an action initiated for contempt of this Court. Since the direction of this Court has already been complied with, it is not necessary to proceed further in the matter. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.R1(a), the proper remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the same in separate proceedings.

In view of the above, this contempt case is closed. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.