Veenakumari.M vs Dinesha. V
2021 Latest Caselaw 18763 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943
                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 1326 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11849/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                                  ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WP(C):

             VEENAKUMARI.M,
             AGED 49 YEARS
             W/O. SHAMA BHAT, UPSA, (NOW UNDER COMPULSORY
             RETIREMENT) AUP SCHOOL, ANEKAL, ANEKALLU P.O,
             MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 323, RESIDING
             AT KALIYUR MADAKA, P.O. KALIYUR, MANJESHWAR TALUK,
             KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 323

             BY ADVS.
             K.SHRIHARI RAO
             N.SHOBHA



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN WP(C):

    1        DINESHA. V,
             FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER , NOW WORKING
             AS ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MANJESHWAR, (AT
             UPPALA), MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 322.

    2        MALATHI T. BHAT,
             W/O. LATE THIRUMALESWARA BHAT, MANAGER, AUP SCHOOL,
             ANEKAL P.O, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671
             323


     THIS    CONTEMPT    OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1326 OF 2021
                                    2



                               JUDGMENT

When this matter was taken up today, Sri.K.Shri Hari Rao -

learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even though his

client has received the amounts as ordered by this Court, the

quantum with respect to subsistence allowance is woefully

insufficient. He submitted that if the same had been calculated by

the respondents as per the existing Rules, for the period from

March 2017 to 24.06.2020, larger amounts should have been

found due to his client. He, therefore, prayed that the respondent

be directed to do so and pay the balance amounts to his client.

2. Even when I hear Sri.K.Shri Hari Rao as afore, the fact

remains that this Court cannot issue directions as afore requested

by him, in a contempt of court case. However, since the learned

Senior Government Pleader - Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan and

Sri.Murali Pallath - learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, submit

that petitioner can be allowed an opportunity to approach the

competent Authority for this purpose. I deem it appropriate to CON.CASE(C) NO. 1326 OF 2021

close this contempt case with such liberty being reserved to him.

In the afore circumstances, this contempt case is closed, with

liberty being reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent

among the respondents for refixing of the quantum of her

subsistence allowance; in which event, same will be considered by

the said Authority in terms of law and after affording her an

opportunity of being heard.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/09/09/2021 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1326 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1326/2021

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.3.2021 IN W.P.C NO. 11849/2020

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.04.2021 ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENTS.

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTEMPT NOTICE DATED 15.7.2021 ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENTS.