IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 876 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.12298/2001 Dated 25/07/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER --------------- M.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI AGED 67 S/O. KESAVAN, NAMBOODIRI, MANGATHAYA KARTHIKA ILLOM, PERUMANNA.P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.PREETHA J.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT --------------- RAJU NARAYANA SWAMY AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION (P) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Cont.(C) No. 876 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 6th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains of non-compliance with Annexure-I judgment which reads as follows: “The prayer is for implementation of Exts.P1 and P2 in the matter of non-payment of arrears of salary and retirement benefits. The only reason for non-disbursement of the benefits is the delay in getting Government sanction. There will be a direction to the first respondent to take appropriate action on the request for sanction for implementation of Exts.P.1 and P2, if not already taken, within one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Thereafter, the eligibility benefits will be disbursed to the petitioner within another one month. In the event of delay, the petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% from the date of Exts.P1 and P2 orders and the officers responsible for the delay will be personally liable for the same.” Admittedly, pursuant to the directions in Annexure I judgment, Annexure 8 order has been passed. I am of opinion that if the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure 8 order, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps for challenging the same. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this contempt case is closed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.