Disposed

Roy C.A. v. N. Geetha

Kerala HC17 Jun 2022Con.Case(C)/226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed a contempt petition filed against the Respondent Deputy Director of Education for alleged non-compliance of earlier directions to pay balance pension. The Court held the matter closed, leaving open the liberty for the petitioner to submit application details.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is closed, subject to the petitioner's liberty to file the application and documents for release of the balance amount.

Roy C.A. Vs N. Geetha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

CON.CASE(C) NO. 226 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31980/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER(PETITIONER):

¶7

ROY C.A. AGED 58 YEARS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, ST SEBASTIAN SCHOOL, CHITTATTUKARA, THRISSUR-680511. BY ADVS. P.RAMAKRISHNAN PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212) T.C.KRISHNA C.ANIL KUMAR ASHA K.SHENOY PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE

¶8

RESPONDENT:(1ST RESPONDENT)

¶9

N. GEETHA DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR-680003.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.ARAVIND.V.MATHEW

¶11

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

C.O(C) No.226 of 2022

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 17^th day of June 2022

¶16

This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner complaining that the directives contained in the judgment dated 19.12.2019 in W.P.(C) No.31980/2019, are not complied with.

¶17

The direction contained in the judgment are as follows

¶18

“ 3. In that view of the matter I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions.

¶19

After having learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to pay balance amount due to the petitioner, at the earliest, and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, also taking into account Ext.P9

¶20

3.When the matter came up before this Court on 11.03.2022, a submission was made for and on behalf of the respondent that there is no record available in the office of the respondent in order to consider the claim raised by the petitioner for the balance amount and as directed by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to forward a copy of the application as well as the documents enabling the officer concerned to release the amount, on 11.3.2022.

¶21

However, when the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that 'duplicate copy of the application' could not be

¶22

C.O(C) No.226 of 2022

¶23

¶24

located and therefore, could not be produced; however, the contempt petition may be closed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to approach the respondent by providing a copy of the application and documents, if any.

¶25

In that view of the matter, the contempt petition is closed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to file a copy of the application and documents before the respondent and if any such application is submitted, I have no reason to think that the judgment rendered by this Court would not be honoured by the respondent, at the earliest possible time from the date of production of the application.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

smv

C.O(C) No.226 of 2022

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 226/2022

¶33

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.10.2018 IN WPC NO.30286/2018. Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2019 IN WPC NO.31980/2019.

Roy C.A. v. N. Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roy C.A. v. N. Geetha

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

S. Venkitachalam Vs Vishnu Nath IAS

Ally Sunny Vs District Collector

A.P.Joseph Vs Veliyannur Gramapanchayat

Rajesh.v.R Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Reni Biju Vs the Kottayam Muncipality

K.R.Vijayakumar Vs the Pandalam Grama Panchayath