Directions contained in 'Annexure A' judgment was to consider the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioners and to take an appropriate decision after affording opportunity of personal hearing, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This Contempt of Court Case is filed alleging non-compliance of the directions. 2. On 16.06.2014 when the case was taken up, learned Government Pleader had produced the copy of a proceedings issued by the respondent in compliance with the direction contained in 'Annexure A' judgment. On that day, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the said proceedings was not communicated to the petitioners. Hence this court directed the Government Pleader to serve a copy of the proceedings on the learned counsel.
3. Today, it is submitted that the learned counsel had received copy of the proceedings. But it is pointed out that no authenticated copy was communicated to the petitioners and they were not in a position to file statutory appeal from such Cont. Court Case No. 546 of 2014 -2-
proceedings. It is further contended that the order issued by the respondent is totally in disregard to the observations contained in the judgment.
4. Since the directions contained in 'Annexure A' judgment stands complied with eventhough belatedly, this court do not propose to proceed further in this Contempt of Court Case. The petitioners will be at liberty to challenge the order passed, in case they are aggrieved in any manner. Statutory remedy of appeal can be resorted to either by production of a copy of the order received from the Government Pleader or on getting authenticated copy directly from the respondent. If the petitioners approach the respondent seeking issuance of authenticated copy of the proceedings, the same shall be issued forthwith.
5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the Contempt of Court Case is hereby closed, subject to observations contained herein above.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pn