IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 177 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32200/2007 Dated 30/10/2007 .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ---------------------------- V.V.GOPALAN, S/O.V.K.KRISHNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, DISTRICT SUB-ENGINEER (RETD) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION BHEEMANADI, RESIDING AT SREE SHYLAM, KORANKULAM, P.O.UDINOOR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT: 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- DR.G.PAVITHRAN, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL,SC KSEB THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE RESPONDENTS HAVE PASSED AN ORDER AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS COURT, THE CONEMPT CASE IS CLOSED. 12.11.2008 SD/- V. GIRI, JUDGE V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- Cont.Case No. 177 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The direction issued by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment dated 30.10.2007 was primarily concerned with the disbursal of DCRG payable to the petitioner. It was also directed that the retirement benefits due to the petitioner will be disbursed to him based upon the decision to be taken by the 3rd respondent Executive Engineer on Exhibit P6 which was a show cause notice proposing to treat the period of suspension as suspension itself. Alleging that the directions have not been complied with, the contempt of court case has been instituted. 2. A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent. It is stated therein that the Executive Engineer finalized the proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P6 vide order dated 19.12.2007. The period of suspension from 29.12.1999 to 31.10.2002 is treated as suspension itself and that period was not to be treated as duty. In other words, the tentative proposal under Exhibit P6 was confirmed. In so far as the claim made by the Cont.Case No. 177 of 2008 2 petitioner for commutation of pension is concerned, statement says that pension papers were received after one year of his retirement and in such cases sanction from the Medical Board was required. Apparently, this is also indicated in the order that was passed by the Executive Engineer and served on the petitioner on 21.12.2007. There is a mention as regards the disbursal of DCRG due to the petitioner. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which exception has been taken as regards as the refusal to permit the petitioner to commute a portion of his pension. 3. Learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board submits that the Director of Health Services should have constituted a medical board to examine the petitioner since the request for commutation was received one year after the date of retirement. Reference is made to Clause 10 of Appendix 10 of Part III of the KSR. This was not done and to that extent there is a lapse. It is submitted by the standing counsel that request may be made by the petitioner to the Director of Health Services to constitute a Medical Board, through the Executive Engineer , to examine the petitioner for considering his request for Cont.Case No. 177 of 2008 3 commutation of pension. The entire process in this regard will be completed at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three months from today. Submission is recorded. Petitioner shall file a fresh application for commutation of pension. If it is so done within a period of one month from today, it shall be processed and appropriate steps will be taken in that regard as indicated above. Taking note of the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent and the submission made by the standing counsel, I do not think it is necessary to further proceed with the contempt of court case. Accordingly, the contempt of court case is closed. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma Cont.Case No. 177 of 2008 4 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007 Cont.Case No. 177 of 2008 5 Common issues are raised for consideration in all these writ petitions. Reference is made to the facts in Writ Petition No.4562/2008 for the sake of convenience.