Disposed

Karthiayini Janaki v. Goplapakrishna Pillai

Kerala HC15 Jul 2010Con.Case(C)/198/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt matter concerning pension claims under the Swathanthrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, the court held the petitioner's remedy lies in challenging the recent order, and closed the contempt case as the ultimate direction in the prior judgment had been complied with.

What did the court decide?

Closed of the contempt case; directed that petitioner challenge the order now passed before this Court.

Karthiayini Janaki Vs Goplapakrishna Pillai — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932

¶4

Con.Case(C).No. 198 of 2010(S) -----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20090/2008 Dated 31/03/2009 ....................

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶6

KARTHYAYINI JANAKI, AGED 50, W/O.KUTTY KUMARAN, NADUVELI HOUSE, PATTANAKKAD P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶9

GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, WORKING AS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.

¶10

ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1

¶11

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶13

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶14

Cont. Court (C) No. 198 of 2010

¶15

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶16

Dated this, the 15^th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T

¶17

The petitioner claims to be a widow of a freedom fighter. In respect of claim for pension under the Swathanthrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 20090/2008 in which Annexure A judgment has been passed by this Court . The petitioner complains of non-compliance with that judgment. According to the petitioner, in the judgment, there is a categoric finding regarding the liability of the petitioner for pension despite which the respondent has now rejected the claim of the petitioner on the very same ground which has been found as unsustainable by this Court .

¶18

Even if the contention of the petitioner is correct, I find that in Annexure A judgment, the ultimate direction to the respondent is to consider the recommendation of the State Government and the nonavailability of record certificate and to pass an order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the recommendation from the State Government. Admittedly, an order has been passed as directed therein. Therefore, even if the respondent has not strictly appreciated the findings in the judgment, the ultimate direction in the judgment has been complied with. That being so, the petitioner's remedy lies in challenging the order now passed. Without prejudice to that right, this contempt case is closed.

¶19

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶20

Tds/

¶21

[TRUE COPY]

¶22

P.S TO JUDGE.

Karthiayini Janaki v. Goplapakrishna Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthiayini Janaki v. Goplapakrishna Pillai

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

Dr.C.Francis Vs Sri.Kuruvila John and Another

Kerala Co-Operative Hospitals Federation Vs K.M.Abdu Rasheed

Dr.v.v.Pyarelal Vs Usha Titus

K.T. Jose Vs Kanakambaran

C.D.Jose Vs Joseph P.R.

E.D.Hilda Vs State of Kerala and Others