Madras High CourtCONT P/896/2017closed

R.Krishnan v. K.Pandi

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.09.2018 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Contempt Petition No.896 of 2017 R.Krishnan ... Petitioner Vs.

Thiur.K.Pandy, Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., 12, Ramakrishna Salai, Salem-636007.

... Respondent Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, to punish the respondent for willfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated 21.11.2016 in W.P.No.40788 of 2016 passed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishnaswamy For Respondent : Mr.P.Kannan Kumar

ORDER

This Court, while disposing of the writ petition in W.P.No.40788 of 2016, by order dated 21.11.2016, directed the respondent to disburse the retiral benefits to the petitioner, 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 (K.Rajendran & others Vs.

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Madurai and others), dated 12.06.2015 and the first instalment shall commence from 01.02.2017.

2.The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the said order dated 21.11.2016 passed by this Court.

3.Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Transport Corporation submitted that the order of this Court has been duly complied with and all the retiral benefits with interest have been disbursed to the petitioner.

4.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is difference in payment of gratuity, Earned Leave encashment and commutation and the respondentCorporation has to pay the said amounts. 5.Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court is of the opinion that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondent-corporation has disbursed the retiral benefits to the petitioner. Hence, nothing survives for the adjudication in this contempt

petition.

6.Accordingly, this contempt petition is closed. However, if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to disbursement of the retiral benefits, he is at liberty to make a representation before the respondent.

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/19/11/2018