IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 953 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP.405/2007 IN O.P. NO.22964/2002 DATED 04/12/2007 .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. DR.V.PADMINI, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.LATE I.B.G.MENON, (NAME SHOWN IN RP No.405/07 WAS BALAGANGADARAN) `PADMASHREE' ITTYANATHU MADOM, VILLADAM, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O., THRISSUR. 2. SUBHADRA.B.MENON, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.LATE I.B.G.MENON, `PADMASHREE' ITTYANATHU MADOM, VILLADAM, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O., THRISSUR. 3. SUJATHA B.MENON, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.LATE I.B.G.MENON, `PADMASHREE', ITTYANATHU MADOM, VILLADAM, RAMAVASRMAPURAM P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN RP: ------------------------------------------- MS.NOREEN NAQVI (AGE AND FATHER'S NAE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITONERS) DIRECTOR GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO AKASHVANI BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 953 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased applicant in OA No.804 of 2000, who retired from the service of the erstwhile All India Radio, on 31.10.1996, while working as a Programme Executive. The O.A. was preferred by the deceased during his life time, claiming the benefits of the order dated 25.02.99 issued in the matter of upgradation of pay scales of certain categories of employees working in the 'Prasar Bharati Corporation' with effect from 06.01.1996. 2. After hearing both sides, the prayer made in the application was declined and OA was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, which was subjected to challenge by filing O.P.No.22964/2002 before this Court. The events did not turn to be fruitful and the OP filed by the deceased was also dismissed. Later, a Review Petition was filed before this Court by the deceased petitioner stating that the Bangalore Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal had taken a different view in OA No.889 of 1999 filed by some similarly CCC No. 953 of 2010 -:2:- situated persons and that, the concerned respondents had already taken a decision to have it implemented and this being the position, the claim of the petitioner is also liable to be entertained in a positive manner. 3. The above Review Petition (RP No.405/2007) was disposed of by this Court observing that the verdict already passed in OA or the judgment in OP No.22964/02 will not bar the way of the petitioner in approaching the 2nd respondent for getting similar benefits, if the concerned respondents had already implemented Annexure A1 order. It is alleging wilful disobedience of the said direction that the petitioners (legal heirs of the deceased petitioner) have approached this Court stating that the direction has not been complied with, which is sought to be proceeded against. 4. The respondents have filed a statement. The Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents has filed a statement, on instructions, pointing out that, the idea and understanding of the petitioners are wrong and misconceived. It is stated that the issue had already been taken up before the Apex Court, as to the sustainability of the CCC No. 953 of 2010 -:3:- claim in similar case and the Apex Court, as per the judgment dated 19.07.2006, has categorically held that the benefits in the order dated 25.02.1999 are liable to be extended only to persons who were working in the Prasar Bharati Corporation or persons who are currently in service. This being the position, no benefits can be extended to the petitioners, submits the learned Assistant Solicitor General. After hearing both sides this Court finds that, the law has been declared as per Annexure R1 Judgment of the Apex Court as mentioned above. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any contumacious act or wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents with regard to the implementation of the direction. No further steps are liable to be pursued in the contempt matter and the same is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb CCC No. 953 of 2010 -:4:-