IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.DENESAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2007 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 373 of 2007(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30332/2006 Dated 28/11/2006 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- P.B. SURESH KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, LINEMAN GRADE-I, GENERATION SUB DIVISION, VELLATHOOVAL,IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.K.K.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 2, 3 & 4: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. DR.G.PAVITHRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), K.S.E.B., VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MR. BABY JOHN, AGED 54 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, THODUPUZHA. 3. MR. K.S.PRADEEP, AGED 51 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. GENERATION CIRCL, MEENCUT, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV.SHRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSE BOARD. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.K.DENESAN, J. ========================= C.O.C.No.373 OF 2007-S. ========================= Dated this the 30th day of March, 2007. J U D G M E N T This Court directed as per Judgment dated 28-11- 2006 in WP(C).No.30332/2006 that the petitioner shall be paid arrears of salary from 1-6-2005 till 30-6-2006 (wrongly typed as 30-6-2005). The respondents have filed a statement furnishing the details of payments made from 1-6-2005 to 30-6-2006 and have claimed that the directions of this Court have been fully complied with. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount paid by the respondent is not correct and that the petitioner is entitled to get some more amount. I think, the contention of the petitioner will have to be examined in appropriate proceedings if a dispute is raised by the petitioner. Without prejudice to that freedom of the petitioner, this Contempt of Court Case is closed. K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE. kvs/-