IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 851 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3232/2008 Dated 28/05/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, "SAI GIFT"HOUSE NO.B.105(1),TC8/1466(2), SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUMALA, TRIVANDRUM-6 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH SRI.K.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SRI.S.SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, CHARIMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE, CHANDRAMUKHI,NARIMANPOINT, MUMBAI-400021. 2. SRI.R.SOMANATHAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 59, REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== Contempt Case (C).No. 851 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains of non-compliance with Annexure A1 judgment, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in Annexure 2 judgment. Although the respondents had tried an appeal before the Supreme Court, that attempt also failed. Subsequent to the filing of the contempt case, according to the respondents, the judgments were fully complied with. The petitioner still takes the stand that the petitioner is still eligible for more amounts than what has been paid by the Bank. That is on the basis that for the period the petitioner was kept out of service, the petitioner was not given increments. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to increments for the period during which he was kept out of service and consequent re- computation of pensionary benefits taking into account the increments also. 2. The respondents take the stand that the specific direction of this Court was to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, but without back wages or without other benefits. All what the respondents is bound to do is to compute the period the petitioner was kept of service as qualifying service for pension and not for any other benefits, is their contention. The counsel for the respondents would c.o.c.851/10 2 point out that on the exact question, the Supreme Court has in A.P.SRTC AND ANOTHER v. S.NARSAGOUD [(2003) 2 SCC 212], held that in similar circumstances, increments are not due to a delinquent where the delinquent is reinstated in service with continuity of service but without backwages. He also relies on another judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. ABDUL KAREEM [(2005) 6 SCC 36] which also is to the same effect. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. In view of the Supreme Court decisions referred to above, which are on all fours with the facts of this case, I am of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to increments for the period during which he was kept out of service. Petitioner's only grievance is that increments have not been reckoned for calculating his pension, which he is not entitled to in view of the above finding. In the above circumstances, this contempt case is closed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge c.o.c.851/10 3