IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 Cont.Case(C).No.1105 of 2007(S) ------------------------------------------------------ ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.32779/2003 DATED 15/11/2006. .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER:- -------------------------------------- * T.G.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, NIRAVATHU HOUSE, VALLIKODE, KOTTAYAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITA (DIED). * ADDITIONAL PETITIONER IMPLEADED: --------------------------------------------------------- SMT.VASANTHY AMMA, NIRAVATHU HOUSE, VALLIKODE, KOTTAYAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITA. (ADDITIONAL PETITIONER IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.11.2007 IN I.A.NO.622 OF 2007 AS ONE OF THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED ORIGINAL PETITIONER). BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.M.R.ANISON SRI.T.R.RAJESH RESPONDENT: 2ND RESPONDENT:- ----------------------------------------------------- DR.G.PAVITHRAN, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KSEB, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------------- Cont.Case (C).No.1105 of 2007-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The learned Single Judge, by his orders dated 5-2-2008 and 25-2-2008, has referred the contempt application filed by the complainant under the second proviso to Rule 6 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. Sri.T.G.Raveendran Nair, when he was alive, had filed a writ petition before this Court, inter alia, seeking certain directions. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition, by its order dated 15.11.2006, had issued the following directions. It reads as under: “All terminal benefits due to the petitioner as above would be disbursed to him within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since, by order dated 1-12-2003, this Court had directed respondents to pay to the petitioner provisional pension, if the respondents have not paid provisional pension to the petitioner as directed by that order, the respondents would be bound to pay interest on the amount equivalent to the provisional pension due to the petitioner at the rate of 9% p.a. from 1-12-2003 till the date of payment”. CoC.No.1105 of 2007 2 3. Primarily contending that the respondent has not complied with the positive directions issued by this Court while disposing of the writ petition, the petitioner in the writ petition had presented the contempt petition, inter alia, requesting the learned Single Judge to take appropriate proceedings as provided under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 4. During the pendency of this contempt petition, T.G.Raveendran Nair died and one of his legal heirs is prosecuting this petition. 5. The learned Single Judge, prima facie, being of the opinion that the respondent has disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court in the writ petition, has referred the matter to this Court as required under the second proviso to Rule 6 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 6. We have heard Smt.S.Karthika, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/petitioner and Sri.Asok M.Cherian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/contemnor. 7. Smt.Karthika, learned counsel appearing for the complainant would submit that the respondent, while paying the terminal benefits due to the complainant/now his legal representatives, CoC.No.1105 of 2007 3 ought to have paid the commutation pension and since that has not been paid, according to learned counsel, the contemnor has disobeyed wilfully and deliberately the orders and directions issued by this Court. 8. Sri.Asok M.Cherian, learned counsel appearing for the contemnor would submit that the terminal benefits that were due to T.G.Raveendran Nair were paid by the respondent/contemnor and, therefore, he has fully complied with the orders and directions issued by this Court. Therefore, submits, that, this Court need not have to take cognizance of this contempt petition. 9. The grievance of the petitioner/complainant appears to be that she is entitled to the commutation pension and since that has not been paid by the respondent, according to the complainant, the respondent has disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court. 10. We have carefully perused the directions issued by this Court while disposing of the writ petition. A perusal of the directions issued would only indicate that the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition had directed the respondents to pay all the terminal benefits due to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has not clarified that the terminal benefits would include even the commutation pension. CoC.No.1105 of 2007 4 11. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is as under: “2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - xx xx xx (b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court”. 12. To take cognizance of the contempt petition, there must be deliberate and wilful disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court. In the instant case, as we have already stated, the one and only direction that was issued by this Court was to pay only the terminal benefits and there was no direction for payment of commutation pension. In the absence of such a specific direction, it cannot be said, that, since the respondent has not paid the commutation pension, he has disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court. 13. In the above view of the matter, it may not be appropriate for us to initiate any contempt proceedings against the respondent/contemnor. Accordingly, we close this proceedings. CoC.No.1105 of 2007 5 14. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner/ complainant to seek appropriate reliefs before appropriate forum. 15. In view of the order passed in the contempt petition, all interlocutory applications are closed. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.Dattu) Chief Justice (A.K.Basheer) Judge vku/-