IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 144 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19090/2003 Dated 30/03/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC: -------------------------------------------------------- G.P.RUGMINIKUTTY AMMA, JAYALAKSHMI BHAVANAM, KULANGARA BHAGOM, CHAVARA.P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.S.RAMESH, MR.NAVEEN.T. RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WPC: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAPABALAN OLIVER, (FATHER'S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) UNDER SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION (K) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.ANANDAN PILLAI, S/O. PACHU PILLAI, AGED 60 YEARS, MANAGER, S.V.P.M. HIGH SCHOOL VADAKKUMTHALA, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. T.K. SAJEEV THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Con. Case (Civil) No. 144 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 19090 of 2003 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 1st February, 2010 JUDGMENT This Court by judgment dated 30th March, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.19090 of 2003 granted relief to the petitioner, quashed Ext.P7 order and directed respondents 1to 3 and 5 to quantify the monetary loss caused to her and to recover the said amount from the Manger personally and from his assets. The 1st respondent was also directed to pass orders, quantifying the amount due to the petitioner till date within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. 2. Annexure-A3 is the order passed by the Government. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-A3 order. According to her, in Annexure-A2 judgment it is clearly stated that the petitioner is entitled to the salary and allowances and pensionary benefits. It is also submitted that the 1st respondent has willfully disobeyed the directions issued by this Court in the judgment by denying pensionary amount to be recovered from the Manager. The learned counsel relies on a decision of the Apex Court reported in Superintendent of Central Excise and others V. Somabhai Ranchhodhvhai Patel (JT 2001 (4) SC 333) and submitted that the judgment Con.Case No.144/2010 2 of this Court is misinterpreted by the 1st respondent and willfully disobeyed the directions in the judgment. 3. I have examined Annexure-A3 Government order. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st respondent was directed to quantify the amount due to the petitioner and to recover the said amount from the Manager personally and from his assets. As per Annexure-A3, the Government quantified the monetary loss caused to the petitioner towards pay and allowances and adhoc bonus from 1-6-1986 to 31-5-1996 to be recovered from the Manager as Rs.2,34,300/-. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the quantification of the monetary loss is wrong and the non-inclusion of the pensionary benefits is illegal and is against the directions issued by this Court. 5. It is true that this Court directed the Government to assess the monetary loss caused to the petitioner. This Court in unmistakable terms held that the monetary loss caused to the petitioner was the salary and other allowances and also the pensionary benefits. The Government took the view that the monetary loss caused to the petitioner do not include the pensionary benefits. It appears that the Government passed orders, as directed by this Court. It is for the petitioner to challenge the order of the Government Con.Case No.144/2010 3 before appropriate forum, if she feels that the non-inclusion of the pensionary benefits is not sustainable in law. 6. Hence, this contempt case is closed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge the Government order in appropriate forum, if so advised. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) mn Con.Case No.144/2010 4