High Court Kerala High Court

K.C.Poulose vs Shri.Senkumar on 24 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
K.C.Poulose vs Shri.Senkumar on 24 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con Case(C) No. 904 of 2007(S)


1. K.C.POULOSE, S/O.CHACKU, AGED 64,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SHRI.SENKUMAR, I.P.S.,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.C.POULOSE(PARTY IN PERSON)

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :24/08/2007

 O R D E R
     K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ
                       -------------------
                Cont.Case (Civil). 904/2007
                       --------------------
         Dated this the 24th day of August, 2007

                       JUDGMENT

Radhakrishnan, J

Perused the judgment in W.A.387/2006 which

was disposed of by this Court stating as follows:

His further contention is that those with qualifying

service between 15 and 19 shall be given one year

more service towards gratifying service. This is not

seen reckoned as per the statement of the KSRTC. So

also extra service for accident free service is also

seen reckoned. The KSRTC shall consider whether

he is entitled to one year each on the said counts to

be added to his qualifying service and shall revise the

pension accordingly. This exercise shall be

completed within a period of three months from that

day and the entire benefits available shall be given to

him within another two months.

2. Petitioner then filed a Review Petition No.

46/2007, which was dismissed on 15.1.2007. As per the

direction given by this Court, KSRTC passed Annexure-J

order dated 29.5.2007 rejecting the request of the

petitioner. Petitioner appeared in person and made his

C.O.C.904/2007
2

submissions. We have perused the allegations raised

against the respondent. In our view, no case has been

made out to initiate contempt of Court proceedings.

Petitioner if so advised, has to challenge Annexure-J

order about which we express no opinion.

Contempt case is accordingly closed.

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
Judge

V.K.MOHANAN
Judge

mrcs