AJITH KUMAR.S.K v. NINA SINGH

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WA 1286/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER: AJITH KUMAR.S.K AGED 41 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI.P.SREE KUMARAN, CISF NO.004340429, CONSTABLE/GENERAL DUTY, PREVIOUSLY OF CISF UNIT FACT UDL, ERNAKULAM, PRESENTLY POSTED AT CISF UNIT MBR-KBR IRON ORE MINES, WEST SINGHBHUM DISTRICT, JHARKHAND, PIN - 833223 BY ADVS. T.SANJAY SANIL KUMAR G. SHABNA T.K. RESPONDENT: NINA SINGH (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), DIRECTOR GENERAL/CISF, CISF HEAD QUARTERS, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003 BY ADV SUVIN R MENON THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CON.CASE(C) NO.2640 OF 2023 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2024 Anu Sivaraman, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in this contempt of court case as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

It is the case of the petitioner in this contempt of court case that though this Court had directed the consideration of the request of the petitioner for retention in Kerala or posting in neighboring States in the light of the spirit and substance of the perspectives and norms discernible from Ext.P7 order, the said aspect has not been considered by the respondent while passing Annexure A3 order. It is contended that the claim has been considered only in terms of the CISF guidelines and, therefore, the directions issued have not been complied with.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that paragraph No.9 of the judgment itself leaves open the issue relating to applicability or otherwise of Ext.P7 norms to the CISF on the basis of Rule 77 of the CISF Rules etc. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner in the contempt of court case has been considered, taking CON.CASE(C) NO.2640 OF 2023 3 note of the contentions raised by him, and his eligibility for posting in vacancies available in Kerala and neighboring States has been specifically considered, but has been found against. It is stated that even though the applicability of Ext.P7 guidelines has not been specifically adverted to in the order, the issue having been considered, the order at best could be amenable only to a challenge on sustainable grounds and would not amount to contempt of the orders or authority of this Court. Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that the proper remedy available to the petitioner would be to challenge the order passed in pursuance of the judgment in appropriate proceedings on the grounds available to him. In the above view of the matter, this contempt of court case is closed without prejudice to the contentions of the parties. Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE NP CON.CASE(C) NO.2640 OF 2023 4 APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2640/2023 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure -A1 Annexure -A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2023 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1286/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.06.2023 SENT BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT Annexure -A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.(3506) DATED 15.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL