In a contempt proceeding regarding alleged non-compliance with an order to pay dearness allowance, the court found no wilful violation based on government regulations limiting establishment charges. The contempt case was closed without further proceedings.
The contempt case was closed without any further proceedings against the respondent.
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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/30TH JYAISHTA, 1938
Con.Case(C).No. 730 of 2015 (S)
-------------------------------------------THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.7728/2014 DATED 26-02-2015.
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP(C).NO.7728/2014.:
JIJU P., S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 34 YEARS, LAB ASSISTANT, SASIMALA KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD. NO.W.22(D), ANAND PATTERN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (APCOS), POOVATHINKAL HOUSE, SASIMALA P.O., PULPALLY, WAYANAD.
BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB.
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN WP(C).NO.7728/2014:
MERIL CHERIAN, W/O.SIBI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, SECRETARY, SASIMALA KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD. NO.W.22(D), ANAND PATTERN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (APCOS), P.O. SASIMALA, PULPPALLY, WAYANAD, PIN-673 579.
BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2016, THE COURT ON 20/06/2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
Con.Case(C).No. 730 of 2015 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
| ANNEXURE I | CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.7728/2014 DATED 26/02/2015. |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE II | COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DATED 05/04/2013. |
| ANNEXURE III | COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF DEARNESS ALLOWANCE PAYABLE DATED 23/03/2015. |
| ANNEXURE IV | COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 23/04/2015. |
| ANNEXURE V | COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DATED 04/05/2015. |
| ANNEXURE VI | COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE STATEMENT OF DEARNESS ALLOWANCE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. |
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE R1 COPY OF THE SRO NO.478/96 DATED 11/06/1996.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
------------------------------------ Cont.Case (C).No.730 of 2015
----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2016
J U D G M E N T
This contempt case has been filed alleging non compliance with the directions issued by this Court as per judgment dated 26.02.2015.
2
Cont.Case (C).No.730 of 2015
introduced by the Government as per Government Order dated 15.12.2008. In the said order, it is stated that the employees are entitled to get Dearness Allowance as applicable to the employees of the State Government. However, in paragraph 10 of the said order it is stated that, from 01.01.2009 onwards or from the date of option, the Dearness Allowance at the rate granted by the State Government has to be given on the revised salary. It is further stated that the petitioner joined service on 01.08.2009 and since then Dearness Allowances were paid to the petitioner and presently he is getting Dearness Allowance at the rate of 150% of the salary from 01.04.2015 onwards. It is stated that the audit has not objected to the same so far. Further, reference is made to Government Order dated 14.01.2016, which also states that establishment charges of the society should not exceed 65% of the trade profit. Therefore, it is contended that the entire existing employees of the society are drawing Dearness Allowance as per the direction contained in para 22 and 23 of the said pay revision order and the society cannot spent more amount.
3
Cont.Case (C).No.730 of 2015
mistake committed by the respondent in computing the pension. If at all the petitioner has a contention that the actual Dearness Allowance is not being paid, the remedy is to challenge the quantum in appropriate proceedings. I don't think that the respondent had committed any wilful contempt which requires further proceedings to be continued.
With the above observations, this contempt case is closed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
AV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has established wilful contempt by non-compliance with directions to pay dearness allowance.
The quantum of dearness allowance payable to employees of co-operative societies.
Whether the petitioner continues the contempt proceedings when no wilful violation is found.
JIJU P.
MERIL CHERIAN
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
