IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 808 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6868/2008 DTD. 2.4.09. .................... PETITIONER: -------------- ALEYAMMA ITTY, EX.A.M.(CO-ORDN.), HSCL, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.140(6), M.M.NAGAR, MANJADY, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW RESPONDENT: ---------------- MALAY CHATTERJEE AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD., 5/1, COMMISSARIAT ROAD, HASTINGS, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL - 700 022. BY ADV. SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CC(C).No.808/2011 A P P E N D I X ANNEXURES: A1 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 2.4.09 OF THIS COURT IN WP(C) 6868/08. A2 : COPY OF COVERING LETTER DTD. 9.6.09 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT. A3 : COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD WHEREBY ANNEXURE A2 LETTER ANS THE DOCUMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT. A4 : COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 4.10.10 ISSUED BY PETITIONER'S LAWYER TO RESPONDENT. A5 : COPY OF CLAIM FORMS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF TA. A6 : COPY OF OFFICE ORDER DTD. 20.10.99 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT MANAGER (P). A7 : COPY OF FORM FOR LTC SUBMITTED BY ME BEFORE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF LTC FOR BLOCK YEARS 1996-97. R1 : COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY COMPANY ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF DEMAND DRAFT. R1(a) : COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE COMPANY ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF DEMAND DRAFTS. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------ Contempt Case (C) No.808 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner alleges non compliance of the directions issued in Annexure A1 judgment. The respondent has filed an affidavit and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also. In the judgment Annexure A1, there was a direction to the petitioner to produce the required documentary proof to satisfy the claim in respect of an amount of Rs.70,186.26. 2. The affidavit filed by the respondent shows that after verifying the documents, the respondent has sanctioned an amount of Rs.41,464/-. The same has been paid by way of Demand Draft. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner has produced various materials in support of the plea that the documents as well as the claims were duly forwarded at the relevant time. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent explained that a reading of Annexure R1(a) shows that in respect of each of the claims, reasons have been stated for admission of the CC(C) No.808/2011 2 amount passed for payment. 4. Evidently, the validity of Annexure R1(a) cannot be decided in a contempt case. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure R1(a), she can challenge it before the respondent or any higher authority and if the petitioner is able to produce the required details, learned Standing Counsel submits that the matter will be re-verified also. The petitioner will file additional materials within a period of two months. In that view of the matter, this Contempt Case is closed leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to approach the respondent again, with regard to the processing of the claim for the balance amount claimed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp