C.P.Aravindakshan v. Arun Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/3RD ASWINA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 58 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).25226/2014 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25226/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 27-10-2014 PETITIONER/PETITIONER : - ------------------------------------------ C.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. K.SANKARAN NAIR, MANAGER, UCO BANK (PFM NO.32041), HOUSE NO.11, RAJEEV NAGAR COLONY, PALLIKUNNU P.O., KANNUR-670 004.
BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.N.MANU THAMPI RESPONDENT/FIRST RESPONDENT: - ------------------------------------------------------- ARUN KAUL, AGED 50 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, UCO BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 10 BTM, SARANI, KOLKOTTA-700001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE, SC. UCO BANK R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.I.ABRAHAM R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No. 58 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).25226/2014 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE I :
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2014 IN W.P. (C) No. 25226/2014.
ANNEXURE II :
COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ZONAL MANAGER DATED 6.12.2014.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE :
NIL.
// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
--------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No. 58 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner initially approached this Court complaining that the respondent Bank has not agreed to retire him on a voluntary basis. Essentially going by the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Bank, this Court has felt that there was no issue to be adjudicated upon, for the respondent Bank fairly conceded that it would expedite the process of the petitioner's retirement on voluntary basis once he appeared before the Bank.
2. Now, the petitioner has come up with the contempt case alleging that Annexure I judgment of this Court has not been complied with.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that the respondent Bank has already complied with the direction of this Court and retired the petitioner on voluntary basis.
4. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there are many disparities in settling the
Cont. Case (C) No. 58 of 2015 terminal benefits of the petitioner. In that regard, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to Annexure II representation said to have been submitted by the petitioner before the respondent Bank.
5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was retired from service by the respondent Bank, as has been directed in Annexure I judgment. Thus, there is full compliance with the direction of this Court. At any rate, if the petitioner has any grievance concerning the alleged disparity in the settlement of his terminal benefits; it gives, in my view, a fresh cause of action to the petition to agitate further. With the above observations, the contempt case stands closed.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-