Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

B. PADMAKARAN, (RTD.) versus P.P.GOPI

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


B. PADMAKARAN, (RTD.) v. P.P.GOPI - Con Case(C) No. 224 of 2007(S) [2007] RD-KL 17580 (20 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con Case(C) No. 224 of 2007(S)

1. B. PADMAKARAN, (RTD.),
... Petitioner

2. M.ABDUL HAMEED (RTD.),

3. C.K.RAJENDRA PRASAD, (RTD.),

4. V.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, (RTD.),

5. V.CHANDRASEKHARAN (RTD.),

6. V.VIJAYAN PILLAI (RTD.),

7. A.ABDUL RASHEED (RTD.),

8. P.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, (RTD.),

Vs

1. P.P.GOPI,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

Dated :20/09/2007

O R D E R

V.GIRI, J.

C.O.C.No.224 of 2007 S

Dated this the 20th day of September, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The allegation in this contempt petition is regarding the non-compliance of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment, which contemplates grant of the benefit of re-option, as requested by the petitioners. Para 3 of Annexure A1 judgment is extracted hereunder:

"Petitioners who are similarly situated like the respondents in the above mentioned writ appeal are entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Writ petition is therefore allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioners the benefit of re-option requested for by them as directed in the judgment of the Division Bench. Consequential benefits shall be worked out and paid to the petitioners within four months on receipt of a copy of this judgment".

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have indicated as follows: "It is submitted that there is no willful

negligence or laches on the part of the respondent in not complying with the directions contained in the judgment within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble court. The reason for C.O.C.No.224 of 2007 the delay has been explained as above. This respondent also offers his unconditional apology for the delay caused in complying with the directions contained in the judgment."

3. It is now submitted by the learned Government Pleader that expeditious steps are being taken to see that the benefits due to the petitioners, as directed in Annexure A1 judgment, are given and it will be disbursed to them, as early as possible, and that no negligence, at all, will be shown in this regard. In the circumstances of the case, accepting the submission made in the counter affidavit and by the learned Government Pleader in court when the matter is taken up today, this contempt petition is closed, giving liberty to the petitioners to move this court again, if there are no change in the circumstances, after a period of two months. Sd/- (V.GIRI)

JUDGE

sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.