Remanded

B.Indira Devi v. v.Vinod

Kerala HC9 Nov 2010Con.Case(C)/1137/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case, the High Court of Kerala fixed a timeline for the First Respondent Bank to provide pay particulars, after which the Second Respondent Pension Board would calculate dues. The petitioner must remit the deficit amount, and the Court assured speedy disbursement of the balance pension.

What did the court decide?

Time limits fixed for Bank to provide particulars, Board to calculate dues, petitioner to remit deficit, and Board to disburse balance pension.

B.Indira Devi Vs v.Vinod — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1137 of 2010(S)

¶6

------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.2219/2009 Dated 30/03/2010

¶7

PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶8

¶9

B.INDIRA DEVI, W/O.LATE D.GOPINATHAN

¶10

NAIR, AGED 74 YEARS, PADINJARE MUNNANKARA VEEDU, CHERTHALA P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN-688524.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN (THYKOODAM)

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2

¶13

¶14

V.VINOD, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, CHERTHALA TOWN SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1435, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524

¶15

M.M.JACOB, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD KALANIVAS, TC NO.27/156, 157, CHINMAYA LANE, KUNNUMPURAM, NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

R1 BY ADV.SRI.K.RAMANATHAN

¶17

R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.V.MOHANAN

¶18

THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶20

¶21

Cont. Case (C) No.1137 of 2010

¶22

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2010

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶25

The writ petitioner approached this Court seeking for appropriate relief with regard to the disbursement of pensionary benefits and the matter was disposed of as per the judgment dated 30^th March, 2010 in W.A.No.2219 of 2010. The petitioner is again before this Court by way of this contempt case alleging wilful disobedience of the direction given by this Court.

¶26

The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances and also producing a copy of the relevant order dated 30^th September, 2010 as Annexure R2A stating that the direction given by this Court has already been complied with. However, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that the verdict is not fully complied with and that much more amount is due to the petitioner. It is also stated that the basic salary

¶27

Cont.Case(C) No.1137 of 2010

¶28

¶29

reckoned by the second respondent for the purpose of calculation of pension is much below the actual amount. The second respondent has filed an additional affidavit stating that the proceedings under challenge before this Court was Ext.P16 which was with reference to the salary before the pay revision and the direction given by this Court was with reference to the said salary. However, the factum of revision of pay is not disputed and it has been stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the additional affidavit as follows:

¶30

“5. It is submitted that the pay revision of 1994 was not considered in the pension fund calculation. In the fund remittance statement submitted by the bank the pay revision was not considered. The benefits of pay revision were also not the subject matter of earlier litigations initiated by the petitioner. No arrears of pension fund contribution are remitted by the Bank taking note of the pay revision of 1994. If the pay revision is reckoned the basic pay of Smt.Indira Devi w.e.f. 4/1994 will be Rs.2410/- and the DA will be varied accordingly.

¶31

It is submitted that the average emoluments, pension and pension fund was calculated without considering 1994 pay revision. If appropriate proposals are submitted through Bank seeking revision of pension with additional arrears of contributions (10% of the revised basic pay with interest) are

¶32

Cont.Case(C) No.1137 of 2010

¶33

¶34

remitted, the Pension Board will consider the revision of pension and sanction the same.”

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶36

petitioner is ready and willing to satisfy the deficit amount of contribution to the Pension Fund as and when the same is intimated and appropriate directions are given so as to make the petitioner eligible to obtain the entire retirement benefits.

¶37

The learned counsel for the second respondent

¶38

submits that it is for the first respondent Bank to furnish the pay particulars to the second respondent, on which event, the requisite amount to be satisfied by the petitioner will be quantified and let known and once the same is remitted, the eligible amount will be

¶39

worked out and the balance will be disbursed as assured in paragraph 6 of the additional affidavit.

¶40

Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that such particulars will be furnished to the second respondent within one week, on receipt of which the second respondent shall work out

¶41

the figures as to the pension fund to be remitted by the petitioner

¶42

Cont.Case(C) No.1137 of 2010

¶43

¶44

and intimate the petitioner within one week thereafter. On receipt of the communication in this regard, the deficit amount shall be satisfied by the petitioner within ten days thereafter, on which event the balance pension amount shall be worked out and caused to be disbursed to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶45

Contempt case is disposed of as above.

¶46

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice

¶47

P.R.Ramachandra Menon,

¶48

Judge

¶49

vns

B.Indira Devi v. v.Vinod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Indira Devi v. v.Vinod

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

K.S.E.Board Vs K.T.Abdul Kalam Azad

The Commissioner of Land Revenue Vs a.P.Arumughan

V.Renjeev Vs the Secretary

Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut Vs Markazu Ssaquafathi Ssunniyya, Calicut

State of Krala and Others Vs Simon K.Francis and Others

C.Mohana Chandran Pillai Vs State of Kerala & Others