Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner is a retired employee of the 2nd respondent (popularly known as Matsyafed). He approached this Court seeking certain service benefits by filing W.P(C) No. 36521/2003, in which, by Ext. P5 judgment dated 20.3.2006, this Court directed to grant the petitioner 5 advance increments with effect from 5.7.1980 on his first absorption to the Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Corporation. Pursuant to the same, the 2nd respondent passed Ext. P6 order dated 24.2.2007. A contempt case was filed alleging non-compliance with Ext. P5, in which this Court held that there is substantial compliance, but reserved liberty to the petitioner to challenge Ext. P6 appropriately. It appears that the petitioner did not challenge Ext. P6 but continued to represent before the Matsyafed, who appears to have issued further orders and ultimately Ext. P13 order dated 30.12.2008. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

5. As admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, what the petitioner seeks is compliance with Ext. P5 judgment. The operative portion of Ext. P5 judgment reads thus:

"The result will be that the petitioner is entitled for relief No. (iii). There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to grant the petitioner five advance increments with effect from 5.7.1980 on his first absorption to the Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Corporation. The Matsyafed will entertain a representation to be submitted by the petitioner regarding preservation of pay parity between the petitioner and Sri. Santhamohan. If the Matsyafed receives such a representation within one month of the petitioner receiving a copy of this judgment, they will consider that representation and pass appropriate orders bestowing as much sympathy as the same deserves. Before taking a decision on the respondent, the Matsyafed shall hear the petitioner."

Admittedly, Ext. P6 order has been passed by the Matsyafed, in which a calculation is given, wherein, 5 additional increments at the rate of Rs. 50/- have been added to his salary for fixation of pay and based on the same, subsequent pay revisions also is stated to have been given effect to. Contending that Ext. P6 is not proper compliance, the petitioner had filed Cont. Case (C) No. 1039/2008, in which, the learned Judge, who passed Ext. P5 judgment, held as follows:

"Annexure R1(a) produced along with the affidavit submitted by the respondent will reveal that there has been substantial compliance of the directions in Annexure F judgment. If the petitioner is having any grievance, it will be open to him to initiate independent proceedings against Annexure R1(a)."