A contemnor sought time complying with directives on consequential benefits. The court denied proceeding with contempt and closed the case, leaving the petitioner to challenge the corporation's order by other means.
The contempt of Court case is closed. The petitioner's right to challenge the Corporation's order is left open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932
Con.Case(C).No. 1353 of 2010(S)
------------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12207/2005 Dated 28/06/2006 ....................
PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -----------------------------------------
P.R.RAMADASAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN,
AGED 62 YEARS, FORMER DRIVER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT PONGANAMOOLA HOUSE, THALIKUNDU, MULAYAM P.O., THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------
SHRI.SANJEEB KUMAR PATJOSHI, IPS.,
AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNWON TO THE PETITIONER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM-695001.
BY ADV. SHRI N. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.M. JOSEPH , J.
----------------------------------------C.C.(C).NO.1353 OF 2010 S IN
W.P.(C).NO. 12207 OF 2005 C
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th December, 2010 .
JUDGMENT
Petitioner complains of wilful non-compliance with
Annexure A Judgment. By Annexure A Judgment, this Court had referred to Ext.P1 Judgment produced therein, which is produced herein as Annexure C and had directed in Annexure A that the respondent will make available to the petitioner all consequential benefits, in view of the disposal of W.P.(C).No.36410/2005.
C.C.(C).1353/10 IN WPC.12207/05 C 2
Nandagopal Nambiar, learned counsel for the respondent sought time. Today, when the matter came up, he made available yet another order dated 26.11.2010. A copy of the said order was handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therein, reference was made to Rule 56 of Part I KSR and it is stated that it is decided to treat the period as leave without allowance, not qualifying for pension.
C.C.(C).1353/10 IN WPC.12207/05 C 3
afresh and it was accordingly that the order was passed after the matter was proceeded with, and this Court had passed Annexure A Judgment.
Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH,
kbk.
//True Copy//
PS to Judge
C.C.(C).1353/10 IN WPC.12207/05 C 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to proceed with contempt proceedings despite the alleged non-compliance with earlier orders directing consequential benefits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ponnamma v. State of KeralaReferred¶28
Ponnamma v. State of Kerala (1997 (1) KLT 720)
P.R.RAMADASAN
SHRI.SANJEEB KUMAR PATJOSHI
K.M.JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
