Manjula Chellur, C.J.

1. In brief, the facts that led to filing of the above Contempt Appeals are as under: Appellants in Cont.Appeal Nos.3 and 4 of 2013 are serving as Secretaries to Government General Administration Department and Commissioner of Rural Development respectively. These Contempt Cases came to be filed complaining non compliance of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C).No.27029/2008. Annexure-R1(a) is the proceedings already issued by the State Government based on the directions in the Writ Petition. The first appellant had filed a detailed affidavit before the learned Single Judge.

2. According to the appellants, a circular was issued as per Annexure-R1(b) based on Division Bench judgment of this Court which resulted in repatriation of the respondent. Despite the above position, the learned Judge directed appearance of the appellants.

3. Cont.Appeal.No.5/2013 is in relation to an order dated 19.06.2013 directing the appellants, who were respondents before the learned Single Judge to appear before the Court on 28.06.2013. The contempt case was filed alleging violation of the directions in the judgment in W.P(C).No.38052/ 2007.

4. In this case also appellants placed reliance on Annexures-R1(a) and R1(b) as contended in Cont.Appeal. Nos.3 and 4 of 2013. In the above three Contempt Appeals the grounds raised by the appellants are as under: In the absence of any finding to the effect that the appellants had committed any wilful disobedience of the directions of the Court or had any contumacious conduct warranting initiation of contempt proceedings against them, there was no justification for the learned Single Judge issuing the orders impugned directing appearance of the appellants officials.

5. They further contend that as per Annexure-R1(a) order the writ petitioners were repatriated to the parent department with a specific direction to report for duty. If any one is aggrieved they have to challenge Annexure-R1(a) and initiation of contempt proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law. They also explain the finding of Division Bench and contend that in the absence of automatic claim for promotion, Government was justified in passing Annexure-R1(a) order. With these averments, they sought for setting aside of the order dated 07.06.2013 so far as Cont.Appeal Nos.3 and 4 of 2013 and order dated 19.06.2013 so far as Cont.Appeal.No.5/2013.

6. Cont.Appeal.No.6/2013 is filed challenging order dated 27.06.2013 in I.A.No.476/2013 in Cont.Case(C) No.577/ 2013 on the file of the learned Single Judge. The order under challenge is as under:

“I accordingly grant the Director of Higher Secondary Education time till 1.7.2013 to pass orders as directed by this Court in the interim order dated 27.3.2013 in W.P(C). No.4053 of 2013, failing which he shall not draw salary and allowances applicable to the post of Director of Higher Secondary Education.”

7. An interim order came to be passed in W.P(C).No. 4053/2013 dated 27.03.2013 directing the Director of Higher Secondary Education, Thiruvananthapuram to approve the appointment of the writ petitioners and pass orders within two weeks. A detailed counter affidavit seeking vacation of interim order was also filed, but it was not considered. However, when contempt application alleging non compliance of interim order came to be filed, the appellants herein personally appeared before the learned Single Judge and filed affidavit explaining the matter and also produced orders sanctioning the post as directed in the interim order. The learned Judge was not satisfied and directed the Director to pass revised order, failing which he was injuncted from drawing salary as Director of Higher Secondary Education. Contending that the order impugned was unwarranted and without jurisdiction, Director and Deputy Regional Director approached this Court seeking setting aside of the order.

8. Cont.Appeal.No.11/2013 came to be filed challenging the order dated 04.09.2013 in Cont.Case.