C.J.Paulose, v. Vice Admiral Anil Kumar Chawla

Kerala HC10 Feb 2020Con.Case(C)/757/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses two contempt of court cases filed against naval authorities for alleged non-compliance with prior civil judgment directions regarding pay scales. The Court found that the Department had revised the pay scale and disbursed dues, holding that any grievance regarding computational discrepancies should be addressed in appropriate proceedings rather than contempt. Both contempt

What did the court decide?

Contempt cases (CO(C)). 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019 are closed as there is no wilful disobedience.

C.J.Paulose, Vs Vice Admiral Anil Kumar Chawla — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 21ST MAGHA, 1941 Con.Case(C).No.2417 OF 2018 IN OP (CAT). 271/2016

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP (CAT) 271/2016(Z) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

M.E. UTHAMA KURUP, AGED 55 YEARS S/O T.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, FOREMAN (RADIO), NSRY, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-682004,RESIDING AT ROHITAS, PERUMTHURUTHU, KALAVOOR P.O.ALEPPEY.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

VICE ADMIRAL ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER,THE FLAG OFFICER IN COMMANDING IN CHIEF, HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-682 004.

¶13

R1 BY SMT.C.G.PREETHA, CGC

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2020, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).757/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶21

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 21ST MAGHA, 1941

¶22

Con.Case(C).No.757 OF 2019 IN OP (CAT). 213/2017

¶23

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP (CAT) 213/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶24

PETITIONER/S:

¶25

1 C.J.PAULOSE, AGED 56 YEARS, SON OF VARKEY JOSEPH, ASSISTANT FOREMAN(ICE) NSRY, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-4, RESIDING AT CHOOTHUKALAYIL HOUSE, S N PURAM, ALUVA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683101

¶26

2 V.A.RAJAN, AGED 63 YEARS, SON OF ACHUTHA PILLAI, FOREMAN ICE (RETIRED) NSRY, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-4, RESIDING AT KAUSTHUHAM, KIZHAKEPRAM, N.PARAVUR , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683513

¶27

BY ADVS.

¶28

SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) SRI.SANJAY JOHNSON

¶29

RESPONDENT/S:

¶30

VICE ADMIRAL ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER,THE FLAG OFFICER IN COMMANDING IN CHIEF, HEAD QUARTERS,SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND,NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-682 004.

¶31

R1 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶32

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2020, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).2417/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶34

..3..

¶35

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

S.Manikumar, CJ.

¶38

Alleging willful disobedience of the directions issued in common judgment dated 20.07.2016 in OP(CAT) Nos. 271 of 2016 and 213 of 2017 in letter and spirit, instant contempt cases have been filed.

¶39

After considering rival submissions made, this Court at paragraph 11 of the judgment dated 20.07.2016 in OP(CAT) Nos. 271 of 2016 and 213 of 2017 ordered thus:

¶40

“11. After hearing both the sides, we find that Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal declining interference with Annexure A10 is not correct or sustainable and they are liable to be intercepted. We do so. We find it appropriate to direct the Directorate to reconsider the matter in the light of their own findings as given in Annexure A11 and to pass appropriate orders with reference to the financial implications forwarded to them by the Flag Officer Commanding in Chief, Kochi, as per Annexure A12 and to pass appropriate orders for rectification of the anomaly at the earliest, at any rate within three months from the date of

¶41

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶42

..4..

¶43

receipt of a copy of the judgment. Both the Original Petitions are allowed to the said extent. No costs”

¶44

After filing CO(C) No.2417/2018, an additional affidavit

¶45

dated 29.03.2019 has been filed by the respondent, stating that the directions of this Court have been complied with and that a consequential order dated 18.03.2019 has also been issued by the Headquarters Southern Naval Command, Naval Base, Kochi addressed to the Principal Director, Directorate of Civilian Personnel Services, Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy)/Dy Dir (Legal), Talkatora Annexe Building, First Floor, Room 101, New Delhi. Thus, in the additional affidavit, it is stated that the anomaly in the pay scale to the post of Senior Chargeman in Naval Dockyard and Naval Armament Inspectorate Organisation (NAIO) has been rectified and accordingly, orders have been issued. For brevity, paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the additional affidavit dated 29.03.2019 are extracted hereunder:

¶46

“6. With regard to the contentions of the petitioner in Para 7 and Para 8 of the reply affidavit, it is humbly submitted that Civilian Establishment list (CE list) has been issued by the respondents in accordance with the administrative procedure involved. There is no Government Order or any other authority which specifies any change in the pay scales of Chargeman -I (Foreman prior to 01.01.1996) and

¶47

..5..

¶48

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶49

subsequent promotional hierarchy. It is pertinent to mention that the pay scales of hierarchical posts in NASO were identical to that of the NAIO and Naval Dockyards. The disparity in pay scale existed only in the post of Senior Chargeman viz Rs 5000-8000/5500-9000. As regards Shri CJ Poulose and Shri VA Rajan, it is submitted that the individuals were already drawing the pay scale of Rs 55009000 in the post of Chargeman- (Foreman prior to 01.01.1996) as on 01.01.06 and are not covered by the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court. The Contention of the petitioner that two petitioners in OP (CAT) 213/2017 viz Shri CJ Poulose and Shri VA Rajan have to be granted the pay scale of Assistant Foreman without any Government order is misinterpretation of the Judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court and Such an action tantamount to violation of Government policies and overriding of the Judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶50

It is further humbly submitted that the respondents have taken every action in accordance with the direction issued by the Hon'ble Court and the claim of the petitioner that a Foreman in the pre revised scale is to be placed as Assistant Foreman under the 5^th CPC and promotions have to be granted are neither covered by any court order nor by any Government Orders. Apparently, the averments and contentions of the petitioner in the reply affidavit are not prayed for in the OP (CAT) and is an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court. The respondents have complied with the specific direction issued by this Hon'ble Court and have

¶51

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶52

given the revised pay to all the individuals in the month of March and the financial benefits applicable to the petitioners upto the date of court order will be disbursed on receipt of Charged Expenditure Sanction for which the action has already been taken by the respondent as per Annexure R1(d). The due drawn statements of arrears for the balance period have been forwarded to Audit authorities and will be paid within 02 weeks. As such there exists not even an iota of wilful disobedience of court order on the part of the respondents.”

¶53

Letter dated 18.03.2019 stated supra, is reproduced

¶54

hereunder:

¶55

CONTEMPT PETITION IN OP(CAT) NOs. 271/2016 AND 213/2017 FILED BY SHRI ME UTHAMAKURUP & SHRI K BHASKARAN

¶56

Refer to IHQ of MoD/DCPS e-mails dated 16 Oct 18 and 06 Dec 18.

¶57

The Due-Drawn Statements in respect of the following petitioners are

¶58

forwarded herewith:-

¶59

(a) Shri MK Asokan, FM

¶60

(b) Shri CK Mukundan, FM

¶61

¶62

(f) Shri SA Rajan, FM

¶63

(9) Shri M Asokapaniker, TA(ENG)

¶64

(h) Shri K Krishnankutty, Ex-CM

¶65

(j) Shri AC Samuel, Ex-CM

¶66

(k) Shri K Bhaskaran, FM(L) (l) Shri PV Gangadharan, Ex-FM

¶67

(m) Shri TK Gokuldas, Ex-FM

¶68

(n) Shri R Jyothi, Ex-FM

¶69

(p) Shri E Joseph Samuel, Ex-CM

¶70

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶71

..7..

¶72

(q) Shri K Sasi, Ex-FM (r) Shri CS Gokulan, Ex-FM

¶73

(s) Shri M Vijayan, Ex-FM

¶74

(t) Shri KK Sivadasan, Ex-FlM

¶75

(u) Shri K Mohanakumar, Ex-FM

¶76

(v) Shri ME Uthamakurup, FM (Radio)

¶77

(w) Shri TA VWilson, Ex-TA

¶78

Out of 23 cases, the Audit Authority has returned 02 cases viz., Shri CJ Poulose, TA and Shri VA Rajan, Ex-FM unauctioned stating that they were drawing the pay scale of 5500-175-9000 in the post of Chargeman-1 (Foreman prior to 01 Jan 96) as on 01 Jan 96, and hence they are not covered under the instant court orders, wherein specifically the Scale of pay of Chargeman-ll (Senior Chargeman prior to 01 Jan 16) has been revised upward to Rs 5500-175-9000. In this regard, AAO (N), Kochi letter PAY/112/CIV/CORRS/VOL-XI/030 dated 23 Jan 19 (copy enclosed) is relevant.

¶79

It is requested that sanction of Competent Authority towards Charged Expenditure may be forwarded to this Headquarters at the earliest for compliance of court order in iits entirety.

¶80

(Reshmi N Menon) Administrative Officer-ii Staff Officer (CP/L&D) for Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief

¶81

Encl: As above

¶82

Enclosure to HOSNC letter CS 2695/43/1768 dated 18 Mar 19

¶83

SL	NAME	DESIGNATION	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
No.
1.	Shi MK Asokan	FM	3,96,507
2.	Shri PP Ravindran	FM	55,435
3.	Shri CK Mukundan	FM	4,72,198

¶84

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶85

..8..

¶86

4.	Shri S Mohanachandran	FM (Retd.)	3,71,389
5.	Shri PK Venugopal	FM	4,46,276
6.	Shri SA Rajan	FM	4,19,674
7.	Shri M Asokapaniker	TA	4,18,611
8.	Shri K Krishnankutty	CM (Retd.)	1,92,499
9.	Shri AC Samuel	CM (Retd.)	3,58,695
10.	Shri K Bhaskaran	FM	4,25,361
11.	Shri PV Gangadharan	FM (Retd.)	3,02,011
12.	Shri TK Gokuldas	FM (Retd.)	1,60,637
13.	Shri R Jyothi	FM (Retd.)	3,55,715
14.	Shri E Joseph Samuel	CM (Retd.)	2,27,287
15.	Shri K Sasi	FM (Retd.)	2,40,419
16.	Shri CS Gokulan	FM (Retd.)	1,32,812
17.	Shri M Vijayan	FM (Retd.)	4,65,803
18.	Shri KK SIvadasan	FM (Retd.)	1,88,446
19.	Shri K Mohanakumar	FM (Retd.)	97,835
20.	Shri ME Uthamakurup	FM	3,74,725
21.	Shri TA Wilson	TA (Retd.)	2,41,334
	GRAND TOTAL		Rs. 63,43,669

¶87

A reply affidavit dated 13.03.2019 has been filed by the contempt petitioner in CO(C) No.2417 of 2018, inviting attention of this Court to the communication dated 04.03.2014 of the Junior Design Officer, Civilian Establishment Officer for Admiral Superintendent, Naval Ship Repair Yard, Kochi, addressed to the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief for SO (Establishment), Headquarters Southern Naval Command, Naval Base, Kochi, wherein financial implication on

¶88

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶89

..9..

¶90

account of higher pay scale to the post of Chargeman has been arrived at in respect of 20 persons. According to the contempt petitioner, there is an error in computation of the financial implication and therefore, judgment dated 20.07.2016 has not been complied with in letter and spirit, for which action is sought for.

¶91

In additional affidavit dated 15.01.2020 filed in CO(C) No. 2417 of 2018, alleged contemnor has contended as follows:

¶92

The contempt petitioner is paid monthly salary in the revised pay scale since March, 2019 and the arrears of pay and allowances due to the petitioner worked out as per Annx.R1(e) at Rs.3,74,725/- was paid to him on 30 July 2019. Therefore, it is contended that the contempt petitioner has no case that the actual amount due to him is not paid. It is also contended that the amount of Rs.63,43,669/- shown in Annex.R1(d) represents the actual amount due, to the eligible petitioners in OP(CAT) Nos.213 of 2017 and 271 of 2016, which has been calculated in the revised pay scale of Rs.5,500-9,000 as directed by this Court, whereas the amount of Rs.71,67,769/- shown in Annex.A3 in CO(C) No.757/2019 is the tentative amount arrived at by the Department, calculated in respect of the petitioners in WP(C) No.1206/2009. According to him, Annex.R1(d) reflects the

¶93

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶94

..10..

¶95

exact/accurate financial implication of the employer on account of the implementation of the direction of this Court with respect to 21 eligible petitioners in OP(CAT) Nos.271/2016 and 213/2017 excluding the contempt petitioners in CO(C) No.757/2019 as those individuals were already drawing the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 during the relevant period. Therefore, the amount shown in Annex.R1(d), i.e., Rs.63,43,669/- is the amount worked out as financial implication as per the direction for pay parity on the basis of Annex.A-11 and taking into account Annex.A-12 in respect of the eligible 21 petitioners. Therefore, according to the alleged contemnor, all the persons referred to in Annex.R1(d) are enjoying the revised pay scale since March, 2019 and have received the respective amounts due to them as arrears of pay and allowances before 30.07.2019 and the plea now raised as to noncompliance with the direction in Annexure A1 judgment is unsustainable, in view of the facts mentioned above.

¶96

In CO(C) No.757 of 2019, alleged contemnor filed additional affidavit dated 31.01.2020. Inviting the attention of this Court to Annexure R1(d), which, according to him, reflects the exact/accurate financial implication of the employer on account of implementation of the direction of this Court as per judgment dated 20.07.2017 with

¶97

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶98

..11..

¶99

respect to 21 eligible petitioners in OP(CAT) Nos.271/2016 and 213/2017, it is stated that the petitioners were already drawing the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 during the relevant period and therefore, the amount shown in Annex.R1(d) is the amount worked out as the financial implication on implementing pay parity on the basis of Annex.A11 and taking into account Annex.A12, in respect of the eligible 21 persons. It is further stated that the said amount has already been paid to the petitioners, and the same is substantiated by Annexures R1(c) & R1(d). It is pointed out that Civilian Establishment List has been prepared for the petitioners, who are Foreman and Chargeman, separately, being distinct category for administrative purpose. It is further pointed out that Annex.A3 pertains to only a tentative calculation of Rs.71,67,769/- in respect of 20 petitioners in WP(C) No.1206/2009 and on computation of the actual financial implication, the same was worked out to be Rs.63,43,669/-. Therefore, according to the alleged contemnor, Annex.R1(d) pertains to the financial implication of all the petitioners in OP (CAT) Nos.271/2016 and 213/2017 except the contempt petitioners in CO(C) No.757/2019. It is also pointed out that the audit authorities have observed that the said individuals were already drawing the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 during the relevant

¶100

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶101

..12..

¶102

period, by virtue of their promotion to the post of Foreman prior to 01.01.1996, and that Annex.R1(d) contains the amount of Rs.63,43,669/- in respect of other 21 eligible persons other than the contempt petitioners.

¶103

According to the learned Central Government Counsel, a sum of Rs.73,00,000/- was fixed as the tentative financial implication, based on Annexures A11 & A12, study reports produced in the Original Application on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal submitted by the Department, and that the same is not conclusive. It is further submitted that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, in common judgment dated 20.07.2016, a sum of Rs.63,43,669/- has been arrived at, as the financial implication. It is further submitted that all the amounts due and payable, as per the calculation made by the department have been paid, to all the petitioners, except the contempt petitioners in CO(C) No.757/2019, who are already drawing the scale of pay, and not entitled to additional benefits. Thus, according to the learned Central Government Counsel, respondent has complied with the directions of this Court, to reconsider the matter in the light of the findings given in Annexure A11 study report, and to pass appropriate orders with reference to the financial implications forwarded to them by

¶104

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶105

..13..

¶106

the Flag Officer Commanding in Chief, Kochi, as per Annexure A12 and to pass appropriate orders for rectification of the anomaly, by reconsidering the matter and passing appropriate orders, rectifying the anomaly in 2018 itself. It is further pointed out that a consequential order has also been issued on 18.03.2019. Thus, according to the learned Central Government Counsel, there is no contempt, much less, willful contempt on the part of the respondent.

¶107

Though Sri.Johnson Gomez, learned counsel for the contempt petitioners, insisted that when the financial implications have been arrived at Rs.73,00,000/-, the amount disbursed does not amount to implementation of the directions in letter and spirit and thus contempt survives, we are not inclined to accept the said contention. Directions of this Court have been implemented. As regards the difference in financial implications and extension of benefit to the extent claimed by the contempt petitioners, it is always open to them to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. Detailed statement of financial implications arrived at on account of the implementation of the revision of pay scale has also been filed.

¶108

In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that there is no contempt, much less, willful contempt on the part of the

¶109

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶110

..14..

¶111

respondent, to proceed further, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. If at all, petitioners have any grievance with regard to the method adopted for computation of financial implications and the denial of the alleged benefits on the basis of the tentative estimate of financial implication, it is always open to them to take appropriate recourse, in accordance with law.

¶112

Accordingly, CO(C)s are closed.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Bka/13.02.2020

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶121

..15..

¶122

APPENDIX OF Con.Case(C) 2417/2018

¶123

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶124

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.7.2017 IN OPCAT NO 271/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶125

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.2.2018 IN COC NO 203 NO 203 OF 2018 PASSED BY THE THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶126

ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN IA NO 453/2018 DATED 23 RD MARCH 2018 IN OP(CAT) NO 213/2017 AND OP(CAT) 271/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶127

ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO CS 2695/43/1742 DATED 17TH OCTOBER 2018 ISSUED FORM HE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT

¶128

ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CON CASE 1729 OF 2018 DATED 21ST NOVEMBER 2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶129

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶130

ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, LETTER CS2695/43/1742 DATED 17.10.2018.

¶131

ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE CIVILIAN ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER FOR BASE LOGISTICS OFFICER ADDRESSED TO THE JCDA-IN-CHARGE, AREA ACCOUNTS OFFICE, CDA, (NAVY), KOCHI-682015.

¶132

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶133

..16..

¶134

ANNEXURE R1(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.02.2019 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE ADMIRAL SUPERINTENDENT BY THE COMMODORE AND ADDRESSED TO THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF, HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, KOCHI.
ANNEXURE R1(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CS 2695/43/1768 DATED 18.03.2019.
ANNEXURE R1(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE DUE DRAWN STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT DUE TO THE PERSONS REFERRED TO IN ANNEXURE R1(D) DESCRIBING THE BASIS OF COMPUTATION.

¶135

CO(C) Nos. 2417 of 2018 & 757 of 2019

¶136

..17..

¶137

APPENDIX OF Con.Case(C) 757/2019

¶138

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶139

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.7.2017 IN OP CAT NO 213/2017.

¶140

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE A11(DIRECTORATE OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL, INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS, MO DEF(NAVY), NEW DELHI,ORDER NO CP(P)/8416/6CPC/POLICY DATED 22-012014) ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE A12(LETTER NO 1/2690/01 DATED 4TH MARCH 2014 ISSUED BY THE JUNIOR DESIGN OFFICER, CIVILIAN ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER, NAVAL SHIP REPAIR YARD, KOCHI TO FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF. ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIVILIAN ESTABLISHMENT CE LIST DATED 29-11-2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶141

ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIVILIAN ESTABLISHMENT DATED 17-01-2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶142

ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23-012019 ISSUED BY THE SR.ACCOUNTS OFFICER TO THE ADMIRAL SUPERINTENDENT, NSRY, NAVAL BASE,KOCHI.

¶143

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶144

ANNEXURE R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE HQ SNC LETTER NO.CS 2695/43/1768 DATED 18/03/2019 BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER-II.

¶145

ANNEXURE R1 (B) TRUE COPY OF IHQ OF MOD (NAVY) ORDER CPT (L)/8000/OP(CAT) 271/2016 AND 213/2017 DATED 07/06/2019.

C.J.Paulose, v. Vice Admiral Anil Kumar Chawla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.J.Paulose, v. Vice Admiral Anil Kumar Chawla

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

The Icici Bank Ltd., Vs Nassaruddin Abdul Majeed

Aadi Dravida Vedar Mahasabha Vs the Registrar General of India

State of Kerala and Another Vs P.D.Raveendran and Another

Kurien Eapen Thomas, Vs Sri.a.Shahjahan IAS

Union of India, Vs P.v.Yesoda Amma

A.M.Noushad Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam