Dismissed

P.Ravindran Nair v. Raman Srivastava

Kerala HC16 Mar 2007Con.Case(C)/308/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt case concerning a petitioners complaint regarding delay in seniority revision. The court closed the contempt proceedngs after the respondent admitted delay and apologized. Petitioners were directed to receive consequential benefits within one month.

What did the court decide?

Consequential benefits to be disbursed within one month of producing a copy of this judgment.

P.Ravindran Nair Vs Raman Srivastava — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2007 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1928

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 308 of 2007(S)

¶6

------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24222/2004 Dated 16/08/2004

¶7

PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS 4,5 & 12 IN THE W.P.(C)

¶8

---------------------

¶9

1. P.RAVINDRAN NAIR, S/O.V.K.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, AGED 60, ALUVILA VEEDU, PATTATHINKARA, THONNACKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (APSI, KAP III BATTALION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (RTD).

¶10

2. K.SIVAN PANICKER, S/.O.C.K.KESAVA PANICKER, AGED 63, C.S.HOUSE, OOLAMPARA, PERRORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (APSI, KAP III BATTALION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) (RTD).

¶11

3. P.NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O.C.PADMANABHA PILLAI, AGED 63, KAIPPATTAKONAM, CHOTHI, A.P.16/546, ARUVIKKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (APSI, KAP III BATTALION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) (RTD).

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN

¶13

SRI.V.V.MATHEW

¶14

RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT 2 IN THE WP(C).

¶15

---------------------

¶16

SHRI.RAMAN SRIVASTAVA, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS), DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI

¶18

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

¶20

Cont.Case (C) No.308 of 2007

¶21

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2007.

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Pursuant to the judgment, it is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, that steps are being taken to revise the seniority. What survives is only disbursement of the consequential benefits. Apology is tendered for the delay stating reasons. Therefore, this Contempt Case is closed with a direction to the respondent to see that the eligible consequential benefits pursuant to the revision of seniority are disbursed to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶24

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶25

vns.

P.Ravindran Nair v. Raman Srivastava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ravindran Nair v. Raman Srivastava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Mg.Director, Ksiadc Vs Kalakkadan Jaafer

O.N.Gopi Vs State of Kerala

Sukumaran.a. Vs Attingal Municipality

K.Ravi Vs I.M.Vijayanand

G.Sreedharan Pillai Vs Raman Srivastava

G.Jayaprakash Vs Lissie Jacob