C. Raju v. Pandi,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.02.2019 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM Contempt Petition No.1055 of 2018 C.Raju
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Pandi The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation(Kovai)Ltd. Coimbatore.
2.Muniyappan The Administrator Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees' Pension Fund Trust Thiruvalluvar Illam Anna Salai Chennai - 2.
...Respondents
Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for wilfully disobeying and not complying with the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 11.07.2016 in W.P.No.23519 of 2016. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannan Kumar
O R D E R
The present Contempt Petition is filed to punish the respondent for their wilfully disobeying and not complying with the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 11.07.2016 in
W.P.No.23519 of 2016.
2.The Grievances of the contempt petitioner is that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23519 of 2016 dated 11.07.2016 has not fully complied with. The calculation memo submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the respondents and they have taken into account the less years of services as qualifying service for the purpose of calculating the pension and pensionary benefits.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is entitled to reckon more number of years of service as qualifying service for the purpose of calculating the pension and pensionary benefits. However, the said benefit has not been granted to the contempt petitioner. Thus, he is constrained to move the present contempt petition.
4.The issue to be considered in the present contempt petition, is the order of the Court says that "without going into the merits of the matter, the Managing Director and the General manager of the respective Transport Corporation are directed to disburse the aforementioned retiral benefits to the petitioners herein in twelve equal monthly instalments, in the light of the common judgment
passed by this Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.383 to 457 of 2015." 5.As far as the said issue is concerned, this Court never adjudicated the issues in relation to the reckoning of the qualifying service and the amount of Pension and pensionary beneifts to be paid to the contempt petitioner. Absolutely, there was no adjudication in respect of the quantum of amount to be paid to the contempt petitioner. Contrarily, a general direction was issued by this Court to settle the terminal and pensionary benefits due to the contempt petitioner with reference to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Thus, the calculations are to be carried out by the establishment of the respondents and it is not as if, the calculation memo submitted by the petitioner should be accepted as it is.
Even, in case of any discrepancy, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the competent authorities for the purpose of redressing his grievances. Contrarily, the contempt petition cannot be entertained and the contempt jurisdiction, which is to be used sparingly, this Court is of an opinion that in respect of the disputes in relation to the calculation of pensionary benefits, no contempt petition would be entertained under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the absence of any specific order by this Court.
grievances in respect of his pensionary benefits, by submitting separate representation.
6.With this liberty, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs.
SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) kak //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2019. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
PS/20/02/2019 To 1.The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation(Kovai)Ltd. Coimbatore.
2.The Administrator Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees' Pension Fund Trust Thiruvalluvar Illam Anna Salai Chennai - 2.