The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a court order directing disbursement of terminal benefits. Regarding the claim for gratuity above the statutory limit, the Court held that this merits issue is beyond contempt jurisdiction and closed the case without adjudication, leaving the entitlement question 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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1941
Con.Case(C).No.726 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 4108/2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2018 IN WP(C) 4108/2018(K) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER / PETITIONER :
A.P.BEENAMMA,AGED 59 YEARS W/O.K.P.RADHAKRISHNAN,RETIRED ASSISTANT SECRETARY,ALAPPUZHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.A67,PICHU IYER JUNCTION,CULLEN ROAD,MULLACKAL,ALAPPUZHA,RESIDING AT KRISHNAVILASOM HOUSE,THURAVOOR SOUTH.P.O,PUTHENCHANDA,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688532.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.V.VARGHESE SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SMT.K.N.REMYA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 ADN 4 :
1 M.K.SAJITH, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.A67,ST.ANTONY'S BUILDING, NEAR VAZHICHERY BRIDGE,ALAPPUZHA,PIN-688001.
2 P.S.HARIDAS, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,PRESIDENT, ALAPPUZHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.A67,ST.ANTONY'S BUILDING, NEAR VAZHICHERY BRIDGE,ALAPUZHA, PIN-688001.
BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No.726 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 4108/2018
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this contempt case alleging
non-compliance of the direction contained in Annexure-I order of this Court dated 18.12.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.(C).No.4108 of 2018. By the said order, this Court directed respondents 3 and 4 therein, to take necessary steps to ensure that the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, less an amount of Rs.40,051/-, as stated therein, is disbursed to him within a period of one month.
3
Con.Case(C).No.726 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 4108/2018
satisfied that there is no deliberate and willful action not to comply with the judgment. In the process of such adjudication, the Court need not also analyse the order passed in compliance with the direction, in forensic precision and skill, so as to unearth the illegality of the order and proceed in contempt. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said decision read thus;
“13. The stand adopted by the 3rd respondent is on the basis of a legal circumstance and this Court is not expected to go deeply into the merits of the matter in a contempt proceedings. Be it noted in a contempt proceeding the sole aspect that is to be identified is, whether there is any wilful and contumacious act on the part of the respondents so as to undermine the prestige and dignity of this Court. Which thus also means, there is no legal inhibition created in adopting a fair and legal stand on the basis of an opinion formed with bonafides. True, the opinion so formed may be incorrect and illegal, but that by itself cannot be converted or transformed so as to have a cause of action for proceeding in contempt. This is more so, since petitioner is left with a remedy to seek adjudication of the issue in a suitably constituted proceedings. So much so, a court considering a contempt petition need only be satisfied that there is no deliberate and wilful action not to comply with the judgment. In the process of such adjudication, this Court need not also analyse the order passed in compliance with the direction, with forensic precision and skill, so as to unearth the illegality of the order and proceed in contempt. Apart from
Con.Case(C).No.726 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 4108/2018
4
all these, the legal contentions raised against declining increment is demonstrative of the fact that, serious and material adjudication is required to the issue.
In such circumstances, this contempt case is closed leaving open that contention.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
AV/8/8
Con.Case(C).No.726 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 4108/2018
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 IN I.A.NO.1/2018 IN W.P. (C)NO.4108/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXUREII TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 20.02.2019 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 20.02.2019 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.
ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to gratuity payments exceeding the statutory limit of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
Whether a dispute over the quantum of gratuity constitutes deliberate non-compliance warranting contempt proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Valsala Kumari Devi M. v. B. Srinivas I.A.S and othersReferred¶21
Valsala Kumari Devi M. v. B. Srinivas I.A.S and others [2018 (5) KHC 59]
A.P BEENAMMA
M.K. SAJITH
P.S. HARIDAS
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
