AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon
The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that, the benefits flowing from Ext.P2 judgment have not been fully extended to the petitioner. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Accountant in the 3rd respondent College and retired from service on 30.06.2004. While in service as above, he was proceeded against in respect of some misconduct and was kept out of service pending enquiry. Later, he came to be reinstated and the management passed Ext.P1 order, whereby the period spent by the petitioner outside was ordered to be treated as ''on duty''. It was in the above circumstance, that the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P. No. 19382/2001, which culminated in Ext.P2 judgment, whereby the petitioner was declared as eligible to obtain salary and such other allowances for the period from 30.6.1984 to 4.3.1997, based on Ext.P1.
Alleging that the direction given by this Court was not complied with, the petitioner filed Con. Case (C) No. 1233/2006. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 29.08.2008, compliance was reported by the learned Government Pleader, also rendering apology for delay. It was accordingly, that the contempt matter was closed as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 29.8.2008. It appears that, the petitioner was having some subsisting grievance to the effect that, some of the benefits which ought to have been extended to the petitioner were not given and hence he wanted to reopen the contempt matter by filing I.A. No. 698/2010. This however came to be closed on 23.6.2011, observing that, if any further grievance was there, it could be sought to be agitated by filing a writ petition and thus this writ petition.
The second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit regarding compliance of the verdict, also producing copies of the relevant bills counter-signed by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education for the period from 30.6.1984 to 4.3.1997. It is stated that, the said payment to an extent of Rs. 3,43,106/- (Rupees three lakhs forty three thousand one hundred and six only) has already been received by the petitioner. It is also added in paragraph ''5'' that, claim in respect of the ''earned leave surrender'', the necessary proceedings had to be forwarded by the Manager with regard to the actuals and that, no such proceedings or request was never made by the authorities. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4 pointing out the sequence of events, contending that, by virtue of the order passed by the Management and also the verdict passed by this Court, the petitioner was not ordered to be given all the benefits which otherwise could have been made available to him, had he be continued in service and that the period in which he was kept out of service has been treated as ''on duty''. The following benefits were released to the petitioner as stated in paragraph ''3'', which is extracted below:
Arrears of salary for the period from 01/01/1984 to 29/06/1984 for Rs. 9496 cashed on 24/11/2006.
(Note: The writ petitioner has drawn salary upto December 1983)
Back wages: Salary arrear bill from 30-06-1984 to 04-03-1997 for Rs. 3,43,106/- cashed on 31/3/2006.
Supplementary and arrear salary for the period from 05/03/1997 to 30/04/1998 for Rs. 32,865/- cashed on 20/05/1998.
Pay fixation arrear for the period from 11/98 to 9/99 for Rs. 30,951/- (Net salary) cashed on 26/11/1999.
Promotion arrear bill for the period from 02/06/1999 to
30/06/2000 for Rs. 2,676/- cashed on 23/03/2002.
Supplementary salary for 1/2001 to 2/2001 for Rs. 4,273/-(Net) cashed on 09/04/2001.
Supplementary salary for the period from 12/2001 to 5/2002 for Rs. 15,998/-(Net) cashed on 17/01/2004.
Supplementary salary bill for the month of June 2002 for Rs. 6,766/- (Net) cashed on 26/07/2002.
Salary bill for the period from 16/05/2004 to 30/6/2004 for Rs. 13,239/- cashed on 24/11/2006 (Note: Availed leave without allowance for the period from 24-08-2002 to 15-05-2004 with Govt. concurrence. Rejoined duty on 17/05/2004 after the expiry of L.W.A.)
Higher grade promotion arrears on completion of 10, 20, 25 years and qualified scale due to attaining the age of 50 in respect of Sri. M Abdul Jabbar.
The claim of the petitioner in respect of the benefits by way of Leave Surrender, Half Pay Leave etc., has been sought to be rebutted stating that, it can only be in respect of actuals and that nothing further survives to be considered by this Court in the present proceeding.
After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents was the subject matter of consideration in O.P. No. 19382/2001, which was allowed as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 15.11.2005, giving positive directions to the extent as specified therein. There is no dispute, the said verdict has become final. Alleging disobedience, the petitioner approached this Court as well, by filing CCC. No. 1233/2006 and on reporting compliance, the contempt matter came to be closed as per Ext.P3 verdict dated 29.8.2008. It was more than two years thereafter that, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 698/2010 alleging that some more benefits were due; which came to be closed by this Court by order dated 23.06.2011 in I.A. No. 698/2010 finally leading to the present writ petition.
If at all any benefit was payable to the petitioner, it can only be with reference to the verdict passed by this Court as per Ext.P2 which has become final. If the direction given by this Court was not fully complied with, the remedy was to file a Contempt of Court Cas; which course was of course pursued by the petitioner. On reporting compliance, the contempt matter came to be closed as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 29.8.2008. If there was any factual mistake, on the submission made from the part of the learned Government Pleader as to the compliance reported was wrong, it was open for the petitioner to have filed a review or even a petition to reopen the contempt matter ''within a reasonable time''. Admittedly, the petitioner approached this Court again only more than two years thereafter and now, by way of present writ petition. It is settled law that, a cause of action in respect of the offence involving Contempt of Court Act is to be pursued subject to the limitation as prescribed u/s 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act; the scope of which has been explained by a Full Bench of this Court as reported in P. Damodaran Vs. Cherkalam Abdulla and Others, . In the above circumstance, this Court is of the firm view that, the petitioner could not have sought to reopen the contempt matter which was closed as early as on 29.8.2008 by filing any I.A. in the year 2010 or by causing the grievance to the reconsidered by way of the present writ petition. The order passed in I.A. No. 698/2010 in CCC 1233/06 as to the course suggested by way of writ petition is to be read and understood as having effect, only if fresh writ petition is actually maintainable. This Court does not find it as a fit case to entertain the relief sought for. Accordingly, interference is declined and writ petition is dismissed.