The court determined that disputes regarding compliance with its directives do not constitute wilful disobedience, leaving the petitioner with the option to seek redress.

J U D G M E N T

I have heard Sri.V.A. Muhammed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

2. The Contempt Court Case has been instituted alleging contempt of the direction contained in the order dated

25.06.2024 in W.P.(C) No.1296 of 2023.

3. The direction issued by this Court in the aforementioned order reads as under:

“There shall be a direction to the 5^th respondent to disburse the service and monetary benefits flowing from Ext.P5 to the petitioner, to the extend there is no dispute and orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months.”

Thus, the 5^th respondent was directed to disburse the service/monetary benefits flowing from Ext. P5 “to the extent there is no dispute.” An order dated 17.01.2025, stated to have been issued by the Assistant Educational Officer, has also been placed on record along with a memo filed by the learned Government Pleader. A perusal of the said order would show that certain disputes have been pointed out with reference to the pendency of the writ appeal against the judgment of this Court, pursuant to which certain salary benefits were extended to the petitioner. Therefore, strictly speaking, the petitioner may not be justified in contending that there is wilful disobedience of the direction issued by this Court on

25.06.2024.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court a subsequent communication dated 27.09.2025, as per which a decision has been taken by the Government to disburse the salary and other benefits due to the petitioner, in my opinion, it is for the petitioner to challenge the order dated 17.01.2025, if so advised. Leaving open the aforesaid right of the petitioner, this Contempt of Court Case stands closed.

Sd/-