IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2007 / 2ND BHADRA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 904 of 2007(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.387/2006 .................... PETITIONER ----------------- K.C.POULOSE, S/O.CHACKU, AGED 64, RESIDING AT KIDANGEN HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.POULOSE(PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENTS: ------------- SHRI.SENKUMAR, I.P.S., AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN), MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ ------------------- Cont.Case (Civil). 904/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August, 2007 JUDGMENT Radhakrishnan, J Perused the judgment in W.A.387/2006 which was disposed of by this Court stating as follows: His further contention is that those with qualifying service between 15 and 19 shall be given one year more service towards gratifying service. This is not seen reckoned as per the statement of the KSRTC. So also extra service for accident free service is also seen reckoned. The KSRTC shall consider whether he is entitled to one year each on the said counts to be added to his qualifying service and shall revise the pension accordingly. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from that day and the entire benefits available shall be given to him within another two months. 2. Petitioner then filed a Review Petition No. 46/2007, which was dismissed on 15.1.2007. As per the direction given by this Court, KSRTC passed Annexure-J order dated 29.5.2007 rejecting the request of the petitioner. Petitioner appeared in person and made his C.O.C.904/2007 2 submissions. We have perused the allegations raised against the respondent. In our view, no case has been made out to initiate contempt of Court proceedings. Petitioner if so advised, has to challenge Annexure-J order about which we express no opinion. Contempt case is accordingly closed. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge mrcs