Ramakrishnan v. Anbu Abraham,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN Cont. Petition No.1266 of 2022 Ramakrishnan Petitioner v Thiru. Anbu Abraham Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd. Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 Tmt. Baama Administrator Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pension Fund Trust Thiruvalluvar House Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002 Respondents Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 08.02.2021 passed in W.P. No.2612 of 2021. For petitioner Mr. D. Veerasekharan For respondents Mr. Ramanlaal assisted by Mr. C.S.K. Sathish - - - - -
ORDER
This contempt petition has been preferred seeking to punish the respondents for the alleged noncompliance of the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. No.2612 of 2021. Today, when this matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General, produced before this Court, the replies sent by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd. and Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust dated 28.01.2023 and 05.01.2023, respectively, and submitted that the aforesaid order of this Court has been duly complied with. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's earlier service has not been reckoned by the respondents while calculating the terminal benefits. To be noted, this Court cannot go into the aforesaid contention, inasmuch as, the prayer in the writ petition was that the petitioner's
representation dated 06.03.2020 may be directed to be considered and orders passed. Concededly, the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.202 has been considered and orders passed. In fact, certain benefits have been extended to the petitioner and certain benefits have been turned down by the respondents. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the replies adverted to in paragraph 2, supra, it is open to him to assail the correctness of the same in the manner known to law and filing a contempt petition cannot a remedy therefor to arm-twist the employer to settle his terminal benefits. In the result, this contempt petition stands closed. 25.04.2023 cad
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
cad Contempt Petition No.1266 of 2022 25.04.2023