Madras High CourtCONT P/564/2018closed

A.S. Jayavelu v. Mr.S.Thirugunayyapadurai

2018-09-28Honourable Mr Justice R.Subbiah3 pages

00IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.09.2018 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Contempt Petition No.564 of 2018 A.S.Jayavelu ... Petitioner Vs.

Mr.S.Thirugunayyapadurai, Managing Director, Vellore District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, No.1, Officers Lane, Vellore.

... Respondent Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, to punish the respondent for willfully and deliberately violating the order dated 20.10.2016 in W.P.No.25008 of 2014 passed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.Bala Haridas For Respondent : Mr.L.P.Shanmuga Sundaram

ORDER

This Court, while allowing the writ petition in W.P.No.25008 of 2014, by order dated 20.10.2016, directed the respondent to to release the terminal benefits and other entitlements due and payable to the petitioner as

expeditiously as possible and not later than six weeks from the date or receipt of copy of the order.

2.The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 20.10.2016 passed by this Court.

3.Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that the order of this Court has been duly complied with and the respondent has paid the entire retiral benefits with interest at the rate of 6.75% to the petitioner.

4.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is difference in payment of interest and that the statutory interest is at 10% and the respondent has calculated the interest only at the rate of 6.75%. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for suitable direction to the respondent.

5.Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court is of the opinion that pursuant to the

directions of this Court, the respondent has disbursed the retiral benefits to the petitioner and as such, the respondent complied with the order of this Court. Further, in the order dated 20.10.2016, this Court has not mentioned any particular percentage of interest for the retiral benefits. Now the dispute is only with regard to the percentage of interest. As it is not the scope of the contempt petition, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted. If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the payment, he is at liberty to make a representation before the respondent.

Accordingly, this contempt petition is closed. SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) ssv //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/05/12/2018