The court reinforced the principle that compliance with its orders in contempt proceedings is evaluated without delving into the merits, allowing for separate legal challenges on substantive grounds.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 19th day of June, 2023 S. V. N. Bhatti, C. J.

We have heard Smt. Rehana Shukkur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Antony Mukkath, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. On 23.08.2022, W. P. (C) No. 19312 of 2022 filed by the petitioner stood disposed of as follows:-

“In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the opinion that the prayers as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner submits his options for the next general transfer, they will be considered taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already joined duty at Parad. If the petitioner has submitted any options with regard to the present ongoing general transfer, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, taking note of the guidelines as well as the index points secured by the petitioner and the other similarly situated employees.”

3. It is contextual to appreciate that the petitioner called in question Ext. P16 order dated 31.05.2022, and Ext. P13 and prayed for a direction to consider Ext. P17 application made by the petitioner during the general transfer of 2022-2023 for a transfer to Kodungallur. As the petitioner did not get the reliefs as prayed for, the petitioner filed W. A. No. 20 of 2023.

4. The petitioner, we clearly recollect during and in the course of the hearing, brought to our notice the difficulties faced by the petitioner and also the genuineness of the request from any standpoint for accepting the humane consideration stated by the petitioner. In W. A. No. 20 of 2023, on the submissions made by the Standing Counsel, a few steps were directed to be revisited by the petitioner. The Board, for whatever reason, could not take a timely decision during the pendency of the writ appeal. In an appeal filed either questioning a transfer or requesting for reconsideration of the representation of the petitioner for transfer to Kodungallur or to Marayoor, we were of the opinion that periodical monitoring ought to be avoided mainly for the view that the scope of judicial review on the transfer of an employee is fairly well established hence the writ appeal was disposed of on 11.04.2023. Now the contempt case is filed complaining disobedience of the following paragraph in the writ appeal together with the observation made in the judgment in W. P. (C) No. 19312 of 2022:-

“The respondents shall pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the appellant for transfer as directed by the learned Single Judge within a period of one week from today and communicate the same to the appellant.”

5. Advocate Rehana Shukkur appearing for the petitioner argues that it is not the time within which the judgment is complied with, but the tenor in which the judgment is complied with, needs to be appreciated by this Court. Stated in other words, even if compliance is reported and the said compliance flies in the face of directives issued by this Court, then the respondents have committed disobedience of the judgment of this Court and are liable for action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 .

6. To illustrate her arguments, she points out that there is rank discrimination in issuing Annexure R2(a) order dated 09.06.2023 for as many as 10 incumbents working at several places have been given a favorable consideration without those candidates satisfying the benchmark that is now applied to the petitioner. The index points are referred to by the respondents and the petitioner having reported at Kodungallur is not working at the loss of pay, and can never attain the desired points. The learned counsel, being conscious of the jurisdiction of this Court in a contempt case, has brought to the notice of this Court the alleged disobedience and concluded that if the reasons and the orders appeal to the Court, she has nothing else to add.

7. Standing Counsel of the respondents, to show prima facie that the orders have been taken up with required serio