IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1410 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13183/2009 DATED 17/6/2009 ................... PETITIONER : --------------------- CHANDRA MOHANAN PILLAI, S/O.RAKHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 64 YEARS, NIRMALYAM, THEKKEVILA.P.O, KOLLAM-691016. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENT : ---------------------- R.SYAMNATH, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.D.RAGHAVAN NAIR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, QETCOS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE.P.O, UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM-6910589, RESIDING AT RAJADHARA, KOLLAM-691012. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR, SC THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Contempt Case(C) No. 1410 of 2010 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Writ petition filed by the petitioner and others was disposed of by judgment dated 17-06-2009, directing that the liability of the retired employees like the petitioner shall be settled by the sixth respondent in the writ petition within three years from 17-06-2009 when the judgment was rendered. 2. In this petition, there are two allegations. One is that, contrary to the undertaking in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, no payment has been made for settling the liability of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank. The other allegation is that, though in the counter affidavit, it was undertaken to pay the salary dues within one year, such payment has not been made. 3. As far as the first allegation is concerned, apart form the fact that the judgment does not direct any payment to be made to the Co-operative Bank, even in the counter COC.No.1410/2010 : 2 : affidavit filed , liability of the sixth respondent to the Co- operative Bank has been indicated and there is no undertaking to pay any amount much less within any time limit. Therefore, this allegation does not have any force. 4. As far as the payment of salary is concerned, though there is an averment in the counter affidavit that amount due towards salary will be paid within one year, fact remains that in the judgment, this Court has given three years' time for settling the liability that is due to the retired employees. In view of the aforesaid direction in the judgment giving three years' time for settling the liability, petitioner cannot now fall back upon the counter affidavit filed and contend that the undertaking in the counter affidavit has been violated. 5. I do not find any merit in the contempt petition. Contempt of Court Case fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge