IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 550 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26249/2008 Dated 22/01/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- D.MARTIN PACKIRAJ, 66 YEARS, RTD. ASST.MANAGER FCI, TC 11/975, NANTHAN CODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SRI.MALLIKARJUN KHAGE, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN AGE NOT KNOWN, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, 28/WASIRPUR, INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL AREA DELHI-110052. 2. SRI.K.K.BHANDARI, AGE NOT KNOWN, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, (CPF) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, HEAD QUARTERS, 16-20, BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI-110001. ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. FOR R2 SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO FOR R2 SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH FOR R2 SMT.MANEESHA KUMAR FOR R2 R1 BY ADV. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Contempt of Court Case No.550/2010-S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains that the directions issued by this Court in Annexure-I Judgment have not been complied with. The matter concerns the grant of pension to the petitioner. The respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. The affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent shows that after various correspondences, monthly pension has been sanctioned at Rs.751/- as per Annexure III order. Explanations have been offered for the delay also. 2. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit pointing out that going by the rate at which pension has to be sanctioned, the petitioner is entitled to be paid pension at the rate of Rs.759/- per month. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has filed a fresh representation dated 07/07/2010 seeking for a modification of the rate at which pension has been sanctioned. 3. Therefore, the first respondent will consider the said representation to see whether the calculation of the pension requires any revision. What remains is the claim for payment of interest. The learned counsel for the first C.O.C. No.550/2010 -:2:- respondent submitted that there had not been any wilful delay in the matter. While considering the representation dated 07/07/2010, the claim for payment of interest will also be considered and appropriate communication will be issued to the petitioner within a period of two months. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms