High CourtsSingle Bench

Praveen Kumar M vs P.S.Rajan

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 31 August 2022 · Citation: (2022) 08 KL CK 0249

HON’BLE JUDGES
Murali Purushothaman, J
CASE NUMBER
CON.CASE(C) No. 846 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 330 words

Murali Purushothaman, J

1.

This Court, by Annexure-D judgment, directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 to P12 representations therein submitted by the petitioners, requesting the 1st respondent to publish the combined seniority list of Senior Managers including Agricultural Officers and to effect future promotions in the post of Assistant General Manager from the said combined seniority list, in accordance with law after hearing one of the representatives of the petitioners, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

2.

The contempt of court case is filed alleging that the 1st respondent did not pass any orders pursuant to Annexure-D judgment within the time stipulated therein and without passing any orders in compliance with Annexure-D judgment, promotions were made to the post of Assistant General Manager, overlooking the seniority of the petitioners.

3.

During the pendency of this contempt of court case, the 1st respondent passed Annexure-I order dated 27.05.2022. According to the petitioners, Annexure-D judgment has not been complied with in its letter and spirit and that the filling up of the vacancies before consideration of Exts.P4 to P12 representations amounts to further flouting the directions of this Court in the said judgment.

4.

As directed by this Court, the 1st respondent has filed an affidavit, explaining the circumstances under which Annexure-I order has been passed. On going through Annexure-I order and the affidavit placed on record by the 1st respondent, in as much as the 1st respondent has considered Exts.P4 to P12 representations referred to in Annexure-D judgment and passed Annexure-I order, I am of the view that the 1st respondent is not guilty of any willful disobedience of the directions in Annexure-D judgment for initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Needless to say that, it will be open to the petitioners to challenge Annexures-I, H and K orders, in accordance with law.

The contempt of court case is closed accordingly.