IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1286 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.7304/2003 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19186/2003 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC: ------------------------------------------------------- M.OUSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MANI, RESIDING AT MANNAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANNAKKARY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): R1-3 IN WPC: -------------------------------------------- 1. NIVEDITHA P.HARAN (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN), SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SMT.K.B.VALSALAKUMARI, (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MINI ANTONY, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................. Cont. Case No. 1286 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner alleges non-compliance with Annexure A judgment wherein I have directed as follows: “In the above circumstances, Ext.P7 is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is quashed. If the respondents are still desirous of continuing the proceedings against the petitioner, despite the explanation of the petitioner, they may do so after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and passing a considered order giving the reasons as to why the petitioner's explanation, Ext.P2 read with Ext.P3 cannot be accepted. While doing so, the 3rd respondent shall consider the applicability of Ext.P4 circular to the issue. If any balance retirement benefits are still due to the petitioner as claimed in O.P. No. 7304/2003, the same shall be disbursed. The entire proceedings as above shall be completed latest within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which the amount withheld from the DCRG of the petitioner shall also be disbursed to the petitioner.” The petitioner admits that orders as directed have been passed, which is Annexure C. Petitioner submits that the direction to pay the balance retirement benefits as claimed in O.P.No.7304 of 2003 has not been complied with. The contention is that on regularisation of the suspension period more amounts would be due to the petitioner as balance retirement benefits. But in Annexure C, it has been stated that Cont. Case No. 1286 of 2009 -2- the suspension period cannot be regularised for want of leave on credit. If the petitioner is aggrieved by that finding, remedy of the petitioner lies in challenging the same appropriately and therefore without prejudice to that right, this contempt case is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs