Bhavani M. N. vs B. Andrew Prabhu
2021 Latest Caselaw 7608 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

    THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

          Con.Case(C).No.101 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 6989/2020

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6989/2020(W) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONER/S:

                BHAVANI M. N., AGED 70 YEARS
                W/O. RAVI, SREEVALSAM, VYMEETI, NADAMA,
                THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
                P.F.A/c. NO.KR/KCH/0013212/000/0000015,
                P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00045568.

                BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

RESPONDENT/S:

                B. ANDREW PRABHU, AGED 50 YEARS
                S/O. S. BHAKTHAVALSALAM (LATE), RESIDING AT
                KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI,
                ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
                (NOW CHANGED AS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
                COMMISSIONER), SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES
                PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (EPFO),
                BHAVISHANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM - 682 017.

                R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.PRASANTH

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).No.101 OF 2021

 IN WP(C). 6989/2020                      2

                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of March 2021

Heard both sides.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the respondent had demanded an amount from the petitioner for

granting higher pension to the petitioner. Accordingly, the

petitioner has paid the amount as sought by the respondent for

getting higher pension. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner further submits that now respondent cannot change its

stand by denying the benefits of higher pension to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the issue is

pending consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the

judgment at Annexure-A1 is not appealed by the respondent.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits

that no case for contempt of court is made out by the petitioner for

taking cognizance by this Court.

4. I have considered the submissions so advanced and

perused the materials placed before me.

5. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent has

committed wilful disobedience of the judgment of this Court in W.P.

(C). No.6989 of 2020 filed by him and therefore, the respondent is Con.Case(C).No.101 OF 2021

liable for action and consequential punishment for committing civil

contempt under the Contempt of Court Act as well as under

provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

6. Paragraph No.4 of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).

No.6989 of 2020 (Annexure-A1) reads thus:-

'' In the light of the submissions as afore, I am of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the respondent-Provident Fund Organisation to consider the request of higher pension in the light of documents at Exts.P7 and P8. The respondent, Provident Fund Organisation is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for higher pension, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.''

It is thus clear that this Court had directed the respondent therein,

i.e., the Provident Fund Organisation to consider the request of the

petitioner for higher pension within a period of two months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition

was decided on 06.10.2020.

7. On behalf of the respondent, an affidavit is placed on

record with a contention that order of this Court has been complied

with by passing the order on 22.01.2021. The respondent has

placed on record the order dated 22.01.2021 by which under

directions of this Court, the subject matter was considered by the

respondent and the same has been decided.

I am of the considered opinion that by passing order dated

22.01.2021, the respondent has duly complied with the directions Con.Case(C).No.101 OF 2021

given by this Court in the judgment at Annexure-A1. There is no

wilful or deliberate negligence to the judgment of this Court at

Annexure-A1. Hence the contempt petition is accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/-

                                               A.M.BADAR
ajt                                             JUDGE
 Con.Case(C).No.101 OF 2021




                             APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1            CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
                       06.10.2020 IN WP(C) NO.6989/2020.