Disposed

S.Karunakaran v. Rajeswaran

Madras HC22 Dec 2023CONT P(MD)/2437/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition filed for non-compliance of an order granting compulsory retirement. Court refused to punish respondent, directing parties to adjust Thrift and Credit Society dues against benefits and release balance by January 31, 2024.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to issue letter for adjusting Thrift and Credit Society dues against benefits; respondent to release balance amount by 31.01.2024.

S.Karunakaran Vs Rajeswaran — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CONT.P.(MD)No.2437 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.12.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

CONT.P.(MD)No.2437 of 2023

S.Karunakaran

... Petitioner

Vs.

Thiru.Rajeswaran, The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Madurai Region, Bye-Pass Road, Madurai-10.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, praying this Court to punish the respondent for willfully disobeying and not complying with the order of this Court dated 22.01.2021 in W.P.(MD)No. 11515 of 2010.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent :Mr.S.C.Herold Singh

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Court in W.P.(MD)No.11515 of 2010, dated 22.01.2021 passed the following order:-

¶16

“18.This Court is of the opinion is that though the first respondent rendered his service in the petitioner/Corporation for a

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶18

CONT.P.(MD)No.2437 of 2023

¶19

period of 23 years, he admitted his guilt before the enquiry officer and he had been charged for the same charge about 21 times. The first respondent was suspended from service for a period of 30 days for the very same offence on 29.02.1996 also. Hence, the order of the Labour Court is modified to one of compulsory retirement with cut of one-third pension for the period upto his normal age of retirement. Beyond the period of his normal age of retirement, the first respondent would be entitled to receive the regular pension due to him. The petitioner is directed to calculate the monetary benefits payable to the first respondent as a result of the modification of the punishment and pay the same to the first respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of this order. However, the first respondent would not be entitled for any interest on the said payment”

¶20

2.Since the said order has not been complied with, the present Contempt Petition is presented.

¶21

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 20.12.2023, Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel took notice for the respondent and sought time to get instructions. Today (22.12.2023), when the matter is taken up for hearing, he points out that the only impediment for making the payment as per the directions given by this Court in the order as extracted above, is that the writ petitioner is liable to pay amounts to the Thrift and Credit Society, on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶22

CONT.P.(MD)No.2437 of 2023

¶23

which the petitioner was a member. He states that on production of 'No Due Certificate' by the petitioner, the amount will be disbursed.

¶24

4.Mr.S.Arunachalam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has been without employment and he is financially incapable to make minimum payment to the Thrift and Credit Society.

¶25

5.In order to reach a solution, the learned counsel for the respondent suggested that if the petitioner gives a letter, stating that the amounts due to the Thrift and Credit Society be adjusted as against the amounts that are due and payable to the petitioner by the respondent, the respondent will disburse the same.

¶26

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client is willing

¶27

to give a letter to the respondent on 26.12.2023. The learned counsel for the

¶28

respondent undertakes that on receipt of the letter from the petitioner, the respondent will release the balance amount to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

3/5

¶31

CONT.P.(MD)No.2437 of 2023

¶32

7.In view of the above, in order to give quietus to this issue, which

¶33

has been pending for decades, I am not inclined to contempt the respondent, however, I give the following direction:-

¶34

“(i)The petitioner is directed to give a letter to the respondent

¶35

that the amount payable to the Thrift and Credit Society may be adjusted from the retirement benefits ie., payable to the petitioner; and

¶36

(ii)On receipt of the letter from the petitioner, the respondent

¶37

shall adjust the amount and make the payment to the Thrift and Credit Society and thereafter, release the balance amount to the petitioner on or before 31.01.2024.”

¶38

8.With this direction, this Contempt Petition stands closed.

¶39

22.12.2023

¶40

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶41

Yuva

¶42

To Thiru.Rajeswaran, The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Madurai Region, Bye-Pass Road, Madurai-10.

¶43

4/5

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

CONT.P.(MD)No.2437 of 2023

¶46

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J

¶47

Yuva

¶48

CONT.P.(MD)No.2437 of 2023

¶49

22.12.2023

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

5/5

S.Karunakaran v. Rajeswaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Karunakaran v. Rajeswaran

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

L. Sangapillai Vs the Principal Secretary

V.Thanka Raj, Vs the Principal Secretary to

S.Anbu, W/O.T.Jeyakanth Vs University Grants Commission

M.Chandrasekaran, Vs the Principal Secretary to

M.Iqbal Vs C.K.Ragavan

P.Murugesan Vs J.Anbalagan