AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—WP(C) No. 14014/09 was disposed of by judgment dated 8th of October 2009 directing 1st respondent, Kerala State Construction Corporation Limited, to disburse the DCRG due to the petitioner on or before 30/11/2009. It was further directed that the remaining portion of the retirement benefits shall be disbursed as early as possible and in accordance with the scheme of repayment submitted by the petitioner.
In so far as DCRG is concerned, parties accept that the amount has been paid in full on 6/1/2010 and there is no surviving grievance in that respect. Petitioner states that the balance terminal benefits have not been paid as directed, and therefore, the direction in the judgment has been violated. It is on this basis this petition is filed.
The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. According to the respondent, in accordance with the scheme framed, despite the financial constraints, they have generated sufficient funds and discharged the DCRG liability due to 43 employees and such payments have been made upto 28/2/2010. It is stated that towards gratuity itself, they have paid Rs. 57,61,793/-. In so far as the balance retirement benefits due to the employees like the petitioner are concerned, they have filed Annexure R1(f) statement, indicating that amount is due to 85 employees, who have retired during the period from 30/11/99 to 31/1/2010. It is stated that in the list, the petitioner is at Sl. No. 69 and that the total liability due to him is Rs. 1,81,667/-. It is stated that out of the liability thus indicated in Annexure R1(f), all employees have been paid 50% of the amount due towards DA and pay revision arrears and that such payments have been made to the petitioner also. It is stated that depending upon the availability of amounts, the balance liability also is being discharged following the seniority as indicated in Annexure R1(f) list.
Therefore, the case of the respondent is that the DCRG has been paid to the petitioner and that like other employees 50% of the DA arrears and the pay revision arrears have been paid to all the employees in Ext.R1(f) including the petitioner.
Petitioner has not succeeded in showing me that there are surplus funds available with the respondents and it is despite the availability of surplus funds that the respondent is wilfully refusing to make payment to the petitioner.
In my view, only in such a case can the petitioner allege that the respondent has wilfully disobeyed the direction in the judgment requiring him to pay the amount due to him. In this proceedings, there is dearth of material in that respect, and therefore, I am not in a position to find that the petitioner has made out a case under the Contempt of Courts Act warranting further action against the respondent.
Contempt petition is closed.