In a contempt proceeding, the petitioner alleged the respondents failed to comply with a prior judgment regarding pension payments. The court closed the case without prejudice, directing the petitioner to challenge the non-payment of pensionary arrears in the appropriate forum.
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
TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932
Con.Case(C).No. 780 of 2010(S)
-----------------------------ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.37257/2003 Dated 07/07/2005 AS AFFIRMED BY JUDGMENT DATED 5.6.2009 IN WA.872/2006
PETITIONER(S):PETITIONER:
M.K.KUSUMAKUMARI, W/O.K.P.THIRUMENI, AGED 59, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.A/562,PALACHUVADU, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.P.THIRUMENI, AGED 64 YEARS, HOUSE NO.A/562, PALACHUVADU, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: -----------------------------------------------1. N.RAMACHANDRAN, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN-682 009.
BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------- Cont.Case ( C) No.780 of 2010-S
Dated, this the 15th day of March, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner alleges contempt by respondents in so far as there is willful non-compliance of Annexure-4 judgment. According to the petitioner, though a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- had been paid, the payment is not in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment. In particular, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the direction of this Court was that the Ist respondent was to consider the case of the petitioner as ordered in Ext.P6 in the light of Ext.P3, and, any amount found payable was to be paid without undue delay. He would point out Annexure-3 which is the same as Ext.P3. He would therefore contend that in terms of Annexure-3 the petitioner was entitled to corresponding scale of Rs.925/- which is revised at Rs.2,800/with effect from 1.1.1986. Therefore, he would point out with reference to Annexure-11 that the Annexure would show that the amount is not paid as ordered. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submit that the
COC 780/2010 -2-
judgment has been complied with. Counter affidavit is filed to which reply affidavit is also filed.
(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.
MS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's allegations of willful non-compliance by the respondents regarding pension payment constitute contempt of court.
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue her grievance regarding non-payment of pensionary arrears within the contempt jurisdiction.
M.K.Kusumakumari
N.Ramachandran
Dr.Arun Prakash Patnaik
K.M. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
