IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1353 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12207/2005 Dated 28/06/2006 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- P.R.RAMADASAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 62 YEARS, FORMER DRIVER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT PONGANAMOOLA HOUSE, THALIKUNDU, MULAYAM P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- SHRI.SANJEEB KUMAR PATJOSHI, IPS., AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNWON TO THE PETITIONER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM-695001. BY ADV. SHRI N. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH , J. ----------------------------------------- C.C.(C).NO.1353 OF 2010 S IN W.P.(C).NO. 12207 OF 2005 C ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th December, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner complains of wilful non-compliance with Annexure A Judgment. By Annexure A Judgment, this Court had referred to Ext.P1 Judgment produced therein, which is produced herein as Annexure C and had directed in Annexure A that the respondent will make available to the petitioner all consequential benefits, in view of the disposal of W.P.(C).No.36410/2005. 2. Now, Annexure B order is produced which is stated to be passed in compliance with the Judgment. Therein, it is stated that in compliance to the orders of this Court, the period from 19.10.1993 to 30.11.2003 for which the petitioner had no physical duty, shall be regularised as leave without allowance, not qualifying for pension, and that sanction is also accorded to disburse all consequential benefits he is entitled to in law. C.C.(C).1353/10 IN WPC.12207/05 C 2 3. When the matter came up on 2.12.2010, Shri N. Nandagopal Nambiar, learned counsel for the respondent sought time. Today, when the matter came up, he made available yet another order dated 26.11.2010. A copy of the said order was handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therein, reference was made to Rule 56 of Part I KSR and it is stated that it is decided to treat the period as leave without allowance, not qualifying for pension. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is contempt committed. He refers to the earlier Judgment (Ext.P1) wherein this Court had directed payment of all consequential benefits and also Annexure A Judgment wherein also, this Court had directed to make available to the petitioner all consequential benefits he is entitled to in law on the basis of Ext.P1 Judgment. No doubt, in Annexure C Judgment, this Court had, while setting aside the earlier order passed on the ground of enquiry report being faulty, permitted the Corporation to proceed against the petitioner C.C.(C).1353/10 IN WPC.12207/05 C 3 afresh and it was accordingly that the order was passed after the matter was proceeded with, and this Court had passed Annexure A Judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent would rely on Rule 56 and the Judgment of the Apex Court in Ponnamma v. State of Kerala (1997 (1) KLT 720). Having regard to the nature of the contempt jurisdiction, I think that it may not be appropriate to proceed in contempt. Leaving open the right of the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Corporation, the Contempt of Court Case is closed. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy// PS to Judge C.C.(C).1353/10 IN WPC.12207/05 C 4