V HAREENDRAN Vs. ANTONY CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Context of Contempt:

(2.) The facts briefly stated are that in 1992 the petitioner joined as an empanelled driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation' for brevity), of which the eo nominee respondent is the Managing Director. While he was continuing in service, the Government issued Annexure-A3 order directing regularisation of the services of the 'provisional engagees'. Ventilating his grievance that his services had not been regularised in terms of Annexure-A3, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 33914/2014.

(3.) As can be seen from the record, many similarly placed employees have also filed writ petitions. In tune with the judgments rendered earlier, this Court disposed of the writ petition on 16.12.2014 with the following direction: