Disposed

M.Sadasivam v. Rakesh Kumar

Madras HC19 Feb 2021CONT P/1227/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court in the Madras High Court addressed a contempt petition regarding the failure to pay retirement benefits. The Court ordered the petitioner to vacate quarters within a week, conditional on which the respondents must consider and disburse the eligible retirement amounts within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to vacate quarters within a week; respondents to consider retirement claims and disburse amounts within eight weeks thereafter; contempt petition closed without costs.

M.Sadasivam Vs Rakesh Kumar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Cont. Petn 1227 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated 19.02.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

Cont. Petn No.1227 of 2020
M.Sadasivam
S/o.K.Mani, B-12, Sreenivasan Road,
Block 13, Neyveli Township,
Neyveli 607 803, Cuddalore District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Rakesh Kumar
Chariman cum Managing Director,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited
Neyveli,
Cuddalore District -607802
2.R.Vikraman
Director (Personnel)
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited
Neyveli,
Cuddalore District -607802
3. Srinivasan Raghavan
Chief Manager,
Lignite Bench / Mine-II,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited
Neyveli,
Cuddalore District -607802 ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for contempt of Court for causing wilful, intentional, deliberate and wanton disobedience towards the order

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

Page 1

¶10

Cont. Petn 1227 of 2020

¶11

of this Court dated 03.06.2020 made in W.P.No. 29844 of 2016. For Petitioner : M/s. T.P.Prabakaran For Respondents : Mr. N.Nithyanandham

¶12

- - - -

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The prayer sought for in this contempt petition is to punish the

¶15

respondent for wilfully disobeying the order of this Court dated

¶16

03.06.2020 made in W.P.No. 29844 of 2016

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not obeyed the order of this Court dated 03.06.2020 and

¶18

had not granted entire retirement benefits to the petitioner. The learned

¶19

counsel for the petitioner mainly insisting that he was not settled the amount under the heads RTA Bill, PRMA, NLC Pension and EPS 1985.

¶20

Even though the petitioner is eligible for the said payments as per the

¶21

statement made by the respondents, the petitioner is denied the said payments.

¶22

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even after retirement from service, the petitioner has not vacated the quarters allotted

¶23

him. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that if the

¶24

petitioner vacates the premises, the respondents shall consider his case and

¶25

disburse the eligible amount to him according to the rules.

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

Page 2

¶28

Cont. Petn 1227 of 2020

¶29

Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

¶30

respondents, the following order is passed;

¶31

i. The petitioner shall vacate the quarters within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and approach the respondents with regard to his claim for RTA Bill, PRMA, NLC Pension and EPS 1985 by way of representation.

¶32

ii. On receipt of such representation, the respondents shall consider the same and disburse the eligible amount to the petitioner in accordance with the rules, within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter.

¶33

iii. With the above directions, the contempt petition stands closed. No
costs.
SD/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)
ak
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶34

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶35

from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶36

GS/25/03/2021

¶37

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

Page 3

¶40

Cont. Petn 1227 of 2020

¶41

1.The Chariman cum Managing Director, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited Neyveli, Cuddalore District -607802 2.The Director (Personnel) Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited Neyveli, Cuddalore District -607802 3. The Chief Manager, Lignite Bench / Mine-II, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited Neyveli, Cuddalore District -607802

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

Page 4

M.Sadasivam v. Rakesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sadasivam v. Rakesh Kumar

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

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem Vs Kamalam

M/S Bajaj Allianz General Vs Gurusamy

Anjalai Vs P.Ramachandran

The G.M.,United India Ins., Co., Ltd. Vs Mumtaj Begam

Abusama W/O. Mohamed Vs Mrs Maimoon Beevi

Dhayalan Vs Ramachandran