Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

B.Sasidharan vs Antoy Chacko

Author: C.K. Abdul Rehim

Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

                THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938

                      Con.Case(C).No. 1462 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).20362/2011
                                   ------------------------------------------------------
            ARISING FROM JUDGMENT DATED 08-11-2013 IN WP(C) 20362/2011
                                         of HIGH COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
-------------------------------------
          B.SASIDHARAN
          S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 66 YEARS,
          SASI VIHAR, PLAVILA, ATHIYANNOOR,
          ARULUMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA, PIN 695123
          (TICKET ISSUER SPECIAL GRADE, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
          CORPORATION, KATTAKKADA DEPOT, RETIRED ON 31/10/2003 AND
          REMOVED FROM SERVICE AFTER RETIREMENT AS PER
          ORDER DTD 19/12/2005.

                     BY ADV. SRI.ANANDARAJAN.N

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3:
-------------------------------------------------------
   1.     ANTOY CHACKO,
          (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
          MANAGING DIRECTOR,
          KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPROATION,
          TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023

   2.     R CHANDRA BABU
          (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
          EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE) (IN-CHARGE)
          KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
          TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

                     R1-R2 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
                                              SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC

            THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

AMG

Con. Case (c) No.1462/2015

                                 APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES


ANNEXURE-A1        TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-03-2012 IN
                   WPC No.6929/2012 OF THE HON'BEL HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

ANNEXURE-A2-       TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02-11-2014 SENT TO THE
                   RESPONDENTS BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE-A3-       TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER No.MRD/SCTIMST/06
                   DATED 02-06-2016 ISSUED BY THE HOD, CVTS ALONG WITH
                   MEDICAL RECORDS.


RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

           NIL


                                  True copy


                                P.A. To Judge



AMG



                  C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

             -------------------------------------------------
           Con. Case (c) No. 1462 OF 2015
             -------------------------------------------------
        DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JUNE, 2016.


                        J U D G M E N T

By virtue of Annexure-A1 judgment Ext.P11 order passed against the petitioner to the effect of removing him from the service of the Corporation was set aside and the Corporation was directed to compute and sanction all terminal benefits due to the petitioner and to disburse the same within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the judgment.

2. The above contempt of court case is filed alleging non-compliance of the judgment. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the retirement benefits were already computed and amounts due were already disbursed to the petitioner. The above fact is conceded by the petitioner. However, dispute is raised with respect to forfeiture of a portion of the DCRG in a proceedings initiated under Part III of KSR. If the petitioner Con. Case (c) No.1462/2015 -2- has got any grievance with respect to the forfeiture any amount out of the DCRG, it is left open to him to agitate such issue in appropriate proceedings. Since this court is of the considered opinion that there is no willful violation or non-compliance on the part of the respondent, there exists no circumstances for taking further steps in this contempt of court case.

3. Accordingly the contempt of court case is hereby closed by reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, as mentioned above.

Sd/-

C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE AMG True copy P.A. to Judge