Kerala High Court
T.K.Kunjumohammed vs K.C.Suresh Kumar on 13 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943
CON.CASE(C) NO. 57 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 5292/2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
T.K.KUNJUMOHAMMED,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. KUNJUMOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT
BUSHARA MANZIL, THANDIKKAL HOUSE, THOTTAKKATTUKARA P.O,
ALUVA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT THANDIKKAL
HOUSE, CHERUVUPARAMBU, U.C COLLEGE, P.O ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.P.V.BABY
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):
K.C.SURESH KUMAR
MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR
MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. NO. 679, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No.57 of 2018 2
IN WP(C).5292/2011
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of August,2021
This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner complaining that the
directives contained in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.5292 of 2011 dated 20 th
September, 2017 are not complied with.
2. Even though in an earlier affidavit dated 24/7/2021 respondent has
disputed the payment due to the petitioner on account of gratuity for various
reasons, in the affidavit filed dated 6 th August, 2021 by the Managing Director
of the Kerala State Co-operative Coir Marketing Federation Ltd., Alappuzha, it
is stated as follows at paragraphs 4 &5:
"4. It is submitted that this respondent on getting legal advice in the
matter, considered the entire aspect of the matter. It is submitted that it is not
properly comprehending the scope of the judgment that the earlier affidavits
were filed, justifying the action of not disbursing the gratuity.
5. It is submitted that on getting the legal advice and entirety discussing the
matter in its with the Standing Counsel, this respondent decided to disburse
the gratuity claim of the petitioner immediately. But, the files relating to his
service and related documents are with the Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Bureau on a case registered by them. Steps are being taken to get back the
relevant documents so as to quantify the gratuity and that it may take some
more time to actually disburse the amount."
3. Learned counsel for respondent also submitted that since the file was
pending before the Vigilance, some more time is required to actually effect the
IN WP(C).5292/2011
payment.
4. Considering the above aspects even though there were some delay on
the part of the respondent in disbursing the gratuity, I am of the considered
opinion that in view of the present emergent situation of COVID-19 pandemic,
a lenient view can be taken.
5. Therefore, this contempt case is closed recording the submission
made by the learned counsel for respondent that entire gratify amount would
be released to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of the judgment.
Contempt petition is closed accordingly, leaving open the liberty of the
petitioner to re-open the same, if situation warrants.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
smv JUDGE
IN WP(C).5292/2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A1 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.9.2017 IN W.P.
(C) NO.5292/2011
ANNEXURE-A2 - TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 11.10.2017
ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT IN THE W.P.(C)
ANNEXURE-A3 - TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD FOR
HAVING SENT ANNE.A1 AND A2 THROUGH REGISTERED POST ON
11/12/2017.
