The court dismissed a contempt petition filed by a petitioner alleging non-payment of retirement benefits. The single judge found that arrears of pension were paid via cheque and no violation of the impugned order existed.
Contempt Case dismissed. No costs.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Contempt Case No.958 of 2012
Date:25th September, 2012
Between:
Y.Sridhara Rao S/o.Lakshminarayana
…..Petitioner
And
A.P.S.P.D.C.L., rep. by Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Padmavathinagar, Tirupati & Ors.
..... Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Contempt Case No.958 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
This Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents complaining disobedience of the order, dated 03.02.2009, passed in W.P.No.8987 of 2008.
2. The petitioner filed W.P.No.8987 of 2008 assailing the action of the respondents in not settling the retirement benefits. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 03.02.2009. Relevant portion of
the order needs to be noted and it is thus:
“Indisputably, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Whatever undertaking given by him for deduction of monthly instalments comes to an end with his retirement. His retrial benefits constitute his property. If any creditor wants to proceed against the retrial benefits, he has to approach the Court and seek necessary attachment orders. The
employer cannot withhold the retrial benefits, based on an undertaking given by the employee while in service. It appears that the employer has received some Court attachments and in which case the employer is justified in withholding the amounts covered under attachment orders. With regard to the undertaking given to various financial institutions, they seize to operate the moment the petitioner retires from service.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to settle the retirement benefits and to pay pension to the petitioner notwithstanding the undertaking given by him while in service, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”
The respondents carried the matter in intra-court appeal being Writ Appeal No.600 of 2009. The said writ appeal came to be disposed of on 29.11.2011. Relevant portion of the order passed in the writ appeal needs to be noted and it is thus:
“Learned single Judge directed the respondent to settle the retirement benefits and to pay pension to the petitioner notwithstanding the undertaking furnished by him while in service. The question of payment of pension is concerned, that is a right which has been earned by an employee. Payment of pension is no longer liable to be treated as an act of grace or bounty on the part of the employer. Pension is a right earned by the employee in recognition of the quality services rendered by him in the past. That is a right which he has earned during the currency of his employment. Therefore, that right cannot be forfeited by unilateral action of the employee. Therefore, to this extent, the direction issued by the learned single Judge cannot be faulted at all. If the employer has already deducted various amounts as listed at paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit and transmitted the same to various creditors of the writ petitioner, no fault would lie at the door-step of the employer in that regard. Therefore, if any further amount of retrial benefits other than pension payable to the writ petitioner is still available, and is payable, the same may be paid to the respondent/writ petitioner, together with monthly pension as directed by the learned single Judge. The deductions already effected so far, cannot be faulted.”
3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 10.07.2012.
4. The respondents entered appearance and filed counteraffidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that monthly pension of the petitioner has been fixed on 04.10.2007 vide proceedings LR.No.SE/O/GNT/P&G/JAO/C1/D.No.366/2007, dated 04.10.2007. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that an amount of Rs.14,53,192/- has been deducted from the terminal benefits
towards the loan amounts prior to the petitioner filing Writ Petition No.8987 of 2008.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner withdrew the request of commutation of pension and therefore, the respondents are not justified in acting upon the earlier request and paying the commutation amount to various creditors of the petitioner. The learned counsel took me to the pension arrears bill prepared by the respondents from 01.05.2007 to 31.07.2012. By referring the statement, it is contended by the learned counsel that an amount of Rs.3,32,703/- towards commutation amount is to be paid to the petitioner and the same has been unjustly sent to the creditors.
7. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the amounts have been sent to the creditors basing on the undertaking letter given by the petitioner prior to the filing of the writ petition and as per the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.600 of 2009, the amounts already sent need not be paid to the petitioner.
8. During the course of hearing, an amount of Rs.9,16,153/- has been paid to the petitioner by way of cheque bearing No.017232, dated 17.08.2012. The said amount representing the arrears of pension from 01.05.2007 to 31.07.2012. Since the pension amount has been paid to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the direction given by this Court in Writ Petition No.8987 of 2008, as confirmed in Writ Appeal No.600 of 2009.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the pension amount from the month of August, 2012 is yet to be paid.
10. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents will credit the pension amount to the account of the petitioner regularly.
11. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondents violated the order, dated 03.02.2009, passed in W.p.no.8987 of 2008.
12. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs.
______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.
Date:25th September, 2012. cs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Contempt Case No.958 of 2012
Date:25th September, 2012
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has proved disobedience of the order dated 03.02.2009 in the pending writ petition.
Y.Sridhara Rao
A.P.S.P.D.C.L. and Ors.
B.Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
