IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 780 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.37257/2003 Dated 07/07/2005 AS AFFIRMED BY JUDGMENT DATED 5.6.2009 IN WA.872/2006 .................... PETITIONER(S):PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- M.K.KUSUMAKUMARI, W/O.K.P.THIRUMENI, AGED 59, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.A/562,PALACHUVADU, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.P.THIRUMENI, AGED 64 YEARS, HOUSE NO.A/562, PALACHUVADU, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. N.RAMACHANDRAN, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN-682 009. 2. DR.ARUN PRAKASH PATNAIK, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER CHEIF MEDICAL OFFICER, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN-682 003. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. --------------------------------------- Cont.Case ( C) No.780 of 2010-S ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 15th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner alleges contempt by respondents in so far as there is willful non-compliance of Annexure-4 judgment. According to the petitioner, though a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- had been paid, the payment is not in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment. In particular, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the direction of this Court was that the Ist respondent was to consider the case of the petitioner as ordered in Ext.P6 in the light of Ext.P3, and, any amount found payable was to be paid without undue delay. He would point out Annexure-3 which is the same as Ext.P3. He would therefore contend that in terms of Annexure-3 the petitioner was entitled to corresponding scale of Rs.925/- which is revised at Rs.2,800/- with effect from 1.1.1986. Therefore, he would point out with reference to Annexure-11 that the Annexure would show that the amount is not paid as ordered. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submit that the COC 780/2010 -2- judgment has been complied with. Counter affidavit is filed to which reply affidavit is also filed. 2. In the nature of the proceedings which are maintainable in contempt jurisdiction I would think that I should not proceed with further in the matter. Accordingly, I close this Contempt of Court Case without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out her remedies in the appropriate forum. Needless to say, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the non-payment of pensionary arrears as is the case of the petitioner also before appropriate forum. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS