IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1053 of 2010(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31670/2008 Dated 27/08/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------- 1. T.K.KANNAPPAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. T.S.KANNAN, RETIRED, REGIONAL OFFICER, COIRFED JEW TOWER, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI-2, RESIDING AT M.I.G.9, GCDA COLONY, MAITHRI NAGAR, VADUTHALA, KOCHI-25. 2. P.K.PEETHAMBARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. P.K.KUMARAN, DEPUTY MARKETING MANAGER, COIRFED, RBCM UNIT, THUMBOOR. 3. MOHAN P., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN, RETIRED, DEPUTY MARKETING MANAGER, COIRFED, REGIONAL OFFICE, PANICKER ROAD, VELLAYIL P.O., NADAKKADU, RESIDING AT PALERI HOUSE, MADAPPALLY COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. ALEY LOUIS, W/O. P.C.CHANDY, AGED 61 YEARS, ASSISTANT FINANCE MANAGER, COIRFED, RCP UNIT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. DR. M.BALAGOPALAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.NO.679, ALAPPUZHA-688 012. 2. DR. K.MADANAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE DIRECTOR OF COIR DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC, COIRFED FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Cont.Case (C) NO. 1053 OF 2010 (S) ======================== Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The complaint in this petition is regarding the alleged non compliance with the directions in Annexure AI judgment in WP(C) No 31670/08 directing payment of dearness allowance at the rate as applicable to the employees in the managerial cadre. 2. Among the parties of the petition, except petitioner No.2, others are retired persons. Therefore what is to be paid in so far as they are concerned is arrears. 3. In so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he is a serving employee and therefore he is entitled to dearness allowance apart from the arrears that is due. 4. In so far as the arrears are concerned, considering the financial constraints of the respondents, they were directed to file an affidavit and an affidavit dated 14/10/2010 has been filed. 5. Taking note of the averments in the affidavit and the submissions made, in so far as the arrears to the retired persons are concerned, I record the submission of the respondents that 60% of the arrears will be paid by instalments at the rate of COC No.1053/10 :2 : 50,000/- per month including from December, 2010 onwards. In so far as the remaining 40% is concerned, it is undertaken that the same will be paid as and when the same is paid to other employees including the retired persons in the managerial cadre. 6. In so far as the second petitioner is concerned, I record the undertaking that the current dearness allowance will be paid to him from next month onwards along with the monthly salary. In so far as the arrears is concerned, that will be governed by the earlier directions. Contempt petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp