'Cabinet Can't Sit In Appeal Over HC': Kerala High Court Pulls Up LSGD Special Secretary In Contempt Plea By Disabled Librarian

The Kerala High Court on Monday (September 22) pulled up the Special Secretary to the Local Self Government Department (2nd respondent), while considering a contempt plea filed over non-compliance of an interim direction asking the Secretary to re-instate the petitioner, a person with disability, to the post of part-time librarian in Kaipamangalam Grama Panchayat.

The writ petitioner, Bindu N.A., had sought for a direction to the Principal Secretary to the Government (LSGD), Director and Deputy Director of Panchayat to comply with the order.

Justice T.R. Ravi had ordered for personal appearance in the contempt case after noting that in the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, she had stated that she is waiting for an order from the cabinet.

On 19th August, the Court had observed: "An affidavit has been filed by the respondent. It is seen that the deponent is waiting for an order from the cabinet. When there is an order of the court, it should be either be complied with or challenged in appropriate proceedings. No further approval from the cabinet is warranted." Thereafter, the case was posted on 12.been 09.2025 but since there was no compliance on that day also, the Court ordered for personal appearance.

Consequently, the 2nd respondent appeared through video conferencing today and thereupon, the Court orally asked what the difficulty in complying with order was. She told the Court that Bindu as one of the many applicants who had sought for regularisation and that government had decided that it has to be a policy and not a decision against individual cases. This decision would be taken by the Cabinet after it goes through the Chief Secretary.

She also told the Court that permission of the Chief Minister has received for keeping the matter before the Cabinet and that Cabinet will sit on Wednesdays. She also appraised the Court that the Cabinet has four different agendas and one of them is regarding category of part-time contingent workers.

On hearing the same, the Court orally observed,

"See, on 19/8/25 this Court had passed an order. After referring to your affidavit. It appeared from your affidavit that you were waiting for orders from the Cabinet even after orders were issued by this Court. That was not taken well by the Court. It is not proper for you to take additional orders from the Cabinet or government when this Court has already declared the law and the rights. Then the only question that remains is the passing of orders. What was this requirement of Cabinet again approving…Cabinet is not sitting in appeal over the High Court."

The respondent replied stating that the matter was already rejected by the Law department as well as the Finance department while the proceedings were going on.

Then the Court orally remarked: "You can challenge the order of this Court. You are free to do so but when the judgment is very much there, you cannot say that the Cabinet should also say. Then what is the purpose of this Court being here?" 

The 2nd respondent reverted that both the finance and law department had already rejected the proposals, and once they rejected the proposals, then the administrative department is not in a capacity to approve it. That's why they had to overrule it and take it to Cabinet, she said.

The Court further orally enquired, "Whether the law department and the finance department has rejected it is another question. What I asked you is, after this Court has specifically found the right where is the question of going back to the rejection by the finance department or somebody else?" 

The 2nd respondent thereafter replied that the matter was taken to Cabinet in 2021 as well and then also it was rejected.

"When was the judgment? The judgment is of 12.6.2025. After 12.6.25, you cannot go again back to something which happened prior to that. Because 12.6.25, this Court has declared the order. By its order, things have become clear. Then I don't understand why there should be a further…In every case, after judgment of this Court, if you are going to sit in appeal over that and Cabinet or somebody else is going to preside on that, what is the purpose of the High Court being here?" the Court orally questioned.

At this juncture, the government pleader informed the Court that a writ appeal has been preferred challenging the single judge's order and permission has been sought to move the matter today itself.

On hearing the same, the Court deferred the proceedings and observed:

"The Respondent appeared in person online and submitted that the issue is being placed before the Cabinet and the Cabinet review meeting on every Wednesdays and is likely to take up this issue. The Government Pleader submits that a mention has been made and a writ appeal filed against the judgment is to be taken up today by the Division Bench. Post this case on Thursday. Personal appearance dismissed for the time being."

The petition is moved by Advocates G. Krishnakumar, Sneha Joy and Nina P. Augustine.

Case No: Con.Case(C) 1663/2025 in WP(C) 9113/2025

Case Title: Bindu N.A. v. Puneet Kumar IAS

Click to Read/Download Order dated 12.6.2025 in WP(C) 9113/2025

Click to Read/Download Order dated 19.08.2025 in Con.Case(C) 1663/2025