IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1060 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.15464/2004 DATED 29/02/2008] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- P.P.MOIDU,AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.V.P.MAMMU,RETIRED ASSISTANT WILD LIFE WARDEN,CEEYEM HOUSE, S.S.ROAD,TELLICHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.KHALID, SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER, SRI.T.P.SAJID. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DR.R.K.DUBEY,PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILD LIFE (A) DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SRI.T.M.MANOHARAN,PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Con. Case (C) No. 1060 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains of non-compliance with Annexure-I judgment in W.P.(C) No.15464/2004 which reads thus: “Petitioner approached this Court while Exhibit P2 appeal was pending. During the pendency of the writ petition, it is submitted that, orders have already been passed. It is for the petitioner, if still aggrieved, to pursue the matter in appropriate proceedings. In the matter of disbursement of pension, in case the petitioner has still any grievance left, he may approach the first respondent, in which case, appropriate action in accordance with law for the disbursement of the eligible pension will be taken by the first respondent within a period of another one month. On behalf of the respondents a statement has been filed along with which Annexure R1 (a) order has been produced, which according to the respondents have been passed pursuant to the said judgment. In view of that order, I do not think that any proceedings for contempt can be taken in this matter. The remedy of the petitioner lies in challenging Ext.R1 (a) appropriately. Without prejudice to that right, this contempt case is disposed of. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/