R.M.Ramachandran vs Vinod
2022 Latest Caselaw 6106 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                    CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16071/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                 KERALA
PETITIONER:

            R.M.RAMACHANDRAN,AGED 65 YEARS
            S/O. KANNAN NAIR, RAYAROTH HOUSE, KAYALOOR,
            CHAVASSERY POST, MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR
            DISTRICT 670 702.
            BY ADV GEORGE SEBASTIAN


RESPONDENT:

            VINOD, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TOT THE
            PETITIONER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE SECRETARY,
            MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 673
            001.
            BY ADV P.V.ANOOP


     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION     ON   01.06.2022,     THE     COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                         Sathish Ninan, J.
                ==============================
                  Cont. Case(C) No.94 of 2022
                  ==========================
             Dated this the 1st day of June, 2022

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aged 65 years and suffers from

80 % physical(visual) disability. He had approached this

Court in W.P(C) No.16071 of 2021 since he was not being

paid the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension for

which he claimed to be entitled to. As per judgment

dated 01.10.2021 this Court directed the Municipality to

consider his claim in the light of Clause 3(ii) of Ext

P8 order dated 06.07.2018. The directions have not been

complied with so far, alleges the petitioner.

2. On behalf of the respondent, a statement has

been placed on record wherein it is mentioned that,

pursuant to the directions of this Court, the claim was

considered and the petitioner was found eligible.

Thereupon, pension is being disbursed. As regards the

claim for arrears of pension, it is stated that, the

application for Old Age Pension was submitted by the

petitioner on 21.07.2016 whereas the Government Order in

question was passed on 06.07.2018 only. Referring to

Clause No.5 of Annexure R1(a) Circular dated 26.02.2019

issued by the Directorate of Panchayath it is contended

that, payment of arrears could be considered only on the

Government making available sufficient funds in the said

regard.

It is seen that in compliance with the directions

in the judgment the entitlement of the petitioner for

pension under the Scheme has been found and disbursement

is being effected. No prima facie case of contempt is

made out. The Contempt Case is closed without prejudice

to the rights of the petitioner to have the claim for

arrears of pension agitated in appropriate proceedings.

Sd/-

Sathish Ninan, Judge

vdv APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 94/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21-07-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 29-07-2016 FROM THE MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 6-07-2018 BEARING NUMBER 241/2018 OF FINANCE Annexure D A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1-10-2021 IN W.P(C) NO. 16071/2021 Annexure E A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21-10-2021 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure F A TRUE COPY OF THE SMS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING RECEIPT OF RS. 600/- ON 4-12-2021