IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1323 of 2010(S) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33069/2009 Dated 09/03/2010 ................... PETITIONER / WRIT PETITIONER : ------------------------------------------------ PUTHUSSERI VALIYA VEETTIL THAMBAYI AMMA, AGED 88 YEARS,W/O.LATE ANDOOR KUNHAMBU NAMBIAR, PUTHUSSERI VALIYA VEETTIL HOUSE, ERUVESSY P.O., VIA CHEMPERI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 632. BY ADV. SMT.K.R.KRISHNAKUMARI RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE W.P.(C) : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.GOPAL K.PILLAI, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. 2. SRI. D.K. GOEL, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. 3. SRI. U.K.S. CHAUHAN, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP.A),DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, A.S.G.I R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Contempt Case (C) No. 1323 of 2010 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to the directions in Annexure-A1 judgment, the respondents passed orders granting pension to the petitioner with effect from 09-03-2010. Therefore, the direction in the judgment stands satisfied. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim was for pension with effect from 1998 and that since benefit is allowed only with effect from 09-03-2010, the judgment is still not complied with. I am not persuaded to agree for the reason that by the judgment, the respondents were only directed to pass orders and there is no direction to pass order effective from any particular date. In that view of the matter, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the date from which pension is allowed, she should seek her remedies in appropriate proceedings. Contempt Case is closed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks