IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 87 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10599/2008 DATED 04/04/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. M.P. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. PACHU NAIR, CHEMBAKASSERY HOUSE, KULAYATTIKKARA POST, ARAYANKAVU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. E. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. K. NARAYANA MENON, EZHUTHULLIL HOUSE, PONNETH TEMPLE ROAD, KADAVANTHRA POST,COCHIN-20. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI MR.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- SHRI SUBAIR, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS) SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. BY ADV. MR.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Cont. Case (C) No. 87 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 11th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T This contempt case is filed by the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 10559/2008 complaining that the directions in Annexure A1 judgment have not been complied with. Annexure A1 judgment reads thus: “The petitioners obtained orders for payment of gratuity due to them from the 1st respondent, by proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act. They are aggrieved by non-payment of amounts covered by Exts.P1 and P2 orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that amounts have been deposited with the Controlling Authority/Appellate Authority. I directed the Government Pleader to get instructions from respondents 2 and 3 as to whether the amounts deposited have not been disbursed. The learned Government Pleader today submits that the Controlling Authority has issued notice to the 1st respondent and no reply has been received. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to see that the proceedings of disbursal of the amounts deposited are completed within a period of one month from today.” 2. According to respondent, the amount as directed by the Controlling Authority was deposited as required under law on 19-5- 2009 without interest. Later on, interest was also deposited in 2009. Although an appeal was filed against the order of the Controlling Authority, no stay was granted. The petitioners' contention is that in so far as despite an application in that regard, the amount was not disbursed to the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to interest as on the date of payment to the petitioners and not till the date of deposit before the authorities. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that once they deposited the amount in full with interest up to the date of deposit, they cannot be made liable for any further interest. I am of opinion that this is a question of law, which has to be taken up and got resolved appropriately by the Cont. Case (C) No. 87/2009. -: 2 :- petitioners. I do not think that for non-payment of interest subsequent to the date of deposit, a contempt case as such would lie. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to take up the matter appropriately in accordance with law. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.