P.A Paulose, v. Sr.Preman Dinarj
Case brief
What is this about?
In this contempt case regarding non-compliance of a previous judgment, the petitioner claimed pension revision was not done. The court observed that grievances were addressed via refund or penalties, and thus discharged the proceedings, allowing fresh representation before the Accountant General if needed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/18TH JYAISHTA, 1939 Con.Case(C).No. 318 of 2017 (S) IN WA.1506/2016
------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1506/2016 DATED 09-11-2016
PETITIONER(S) :-
P.A PAULOSE, AGED 66 YEARS, RETD. SENIOR SUPDT. (HG), S/O ANTONY, PUTHIYEDATH, CHENGOTHUKUNNU P.O., KONGORPILLY - 683 015.
BY SRI.P.A PAULOSE (PARTY IN PERSON)
RESPONDENT(S) :-
1. SR.PREMAN DINARAJ, AGE AND WHERE ABOUT NOT KNOWN, THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), OFFICE OF THE AG (A & E) KERALA, M.G.ROAD, P.B.NO.5607, TRIVANDRUM - 1.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
P.A Paulose
- respondent
Sr. Preman Dinaraj
- respondent
Sri. Maman
- respondent
Dr. Rejasekharan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court