N.R. VIJAYAN Vs. E. PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 26799 of 2003 is before this Court alleging contumacious act on the part of the respondent/contemnor, stating that the direction given by the learned Single Judge as per judgment dated 25.08.2008 in the writ petition has not been complied with. Though the respondent has already passed an order, it is stated as not in conformity with the directions given by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) OBVIOUSLY , the grievance of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that he was made to continue in service for nearly 21 years, without regularisation and when the question of regularisation was being considered by the Government, he attained the age of superannuation and came out from the service on 30.09.2001. The benefit of regularisation was denied placing reliance on G.O.(P) No. 39/2002/P&ARD dated 26.08.2002. When it was challenged, seeking to grant pensionary benefits, a verdict was passed by the learned Single Judge directing the matter to be considered in a 'limited angle' with reference to Rule 39 of Part II K.S. & S.S.R, so as to make the petitioner eligible to have the pensionary benefits. It was accordingly, that the matter was considered and an order was passed by the Government (produced and marked as Annexure IV) holding that the petitioner was not entitled to have any benefit; which in turn forms the basis for the contempt petition stating that it is contrary to the mandate given by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) GOING by the materials on record, it is revealed that the direction given by the learned Single Judge was to have the matter considered with reference to Rule 39 of Part II K.S. & S.S.R and no positive declaration or direction was given. In the last paragraph of the judgment, it was stated as follows: