M P Sadanandan vs Ajay Kumar Srivastava
2023 Latest Caselaw 10056 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                     &
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
         Monday, the 18th day of September 2023 / 27th Bhadra, 1945
             CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 1895 OF 2023(S) IN WA 339/2022

  PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN W.A.:


         M P SADANANDAN, S/O. PODIYAN, AGED 57 YEARS,

         RESIDING AT ARUN BHAVAN, KURUTHAR, KUZHIKALA P.O.,

         PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 644.

      BY ADVOCATES M/S. SAJITH KUMAR V., VIVEK A.V., GODWIN JOSEPH & RONIT
      ZACHARIAH.

  RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 IN W.A.:


    1. AJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
       DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, 763 ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - PIN : 600
       002.
    2. SMT. HYMA VARDHANI L., DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE
       AUTHORITY) INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CENTRAL OFFICE, 763 ANNA SALAI,
       CHENNAI - PIN : 600 002.

         BY ADVOCATE SRI.LEO GEORGE


     This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
18.09.2023, the court on the same day passed the following:


                                                              P.T.O.
               DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                                    &
                   MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
                     -------------------------------
                Cont. Case (C).NO.1895 OF 2023
                   -----------------------------------
           Dated this the 18th day of September, 2023

                              ORDER

Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

Although an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2 nd

respondent in purported reporting of compliance with our directions

in the judgment dated 12.08.2022 in W.A.No.339 of 2022, we find

that out of the retirement benefits that are payable to the petitioner,

the gratuity amount has been withheld by the respondents. The

affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent indicates that the

withholding of the gratuity amount was pursuant to the provisions of

Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

2. We fail to understand how the said provision will be

attracted in a case where admittedly, the order terminating the

services of the petitioner was interfered with by this Court and the

punishment modified from termination to compulsory retirement with

a further direction that the petitioner would be entitled to all

consequential benefits flowing from the said declaration. It is also Cont. Case (C ).No.1895/2023 :: 2 ::

relevant to note that against our judgment, the respondents had

carried the matter in a Special Leave Petition [SLP] before the

Supreme Court, and the said SLP was also dismissed thereby

according finality to our judgment. Since we are of the view that

there is no justification whatsoever for withholding the gratuity

payable to the petitioner, we direct the respondents to effect payment

of the gratuity amounts due to the petitioner over and above the

amount of Rs.6,34,160/- + Rs.2,98,425.30 which are shown as

credited to the account of the petitioner on 02.09.2023 and

13.09.2023 respectively.

List this matter on 09.10.2023 at 1.30 p.m. in the Chambers,

for reporting compliance.

Sd/-

DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE prp/18/9/23

18-09-2023 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar