KRISHNAPILLAI Vs. JIJI THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.M.P. is filed by the petitioner to reopen CCC No. 376/2000. The above Contempt of Court Case was filed by the petitioner against the respondents due to the wilful disobedience of judgment of this Court in O.P. No. 32080/99. As per the judgment of the said O.P., the respondents were directed to pay all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner at the earliest at the rate of 12% from 1-11-99 till the date of payments. A period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment was granted to the respondents. Even after receipt of the said judgment no payment was made. Thereafter Contempt notice was issued to the respondents. As there was no response, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition. When the petition came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader after instruction submitted that the entire benefits have been paid. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents did not pay any amount to the petitioner towards the pensionary benefits and the said fact was brought to the notice of the Court. It is further submitted that when this court directed to file the affidavit to this effect, the respondents immediately on the next day issued a letter to the petitioner informing to collect the amount from the Sub Treasury, Parassala. The petitioner approached the Sub Treasury and received the pensionary benefit without interest on 25-7-2000. When the petitioner asked for the interest, they informed him that he may go to the court and receive the same from the court. The case was again posted on 25-8-2000 for compliance of the judgment. On that day the learned Government Pleader submitted that the entire amount towards interest was also paid to the petitioner. On recording the submission, the Contempt Case was closed. It is submitted that the petitioner received Rs. 10,428 / only towards interest. Actually he is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 29,659/-. The balance amount of Rs. 19,231/- is yet to be given by the respondents. In that background the petitioner filed the petition to reopen the Contempt of Court Case.

(2.) The respondents filed an affidavit on 8-12-2000 denying the averments in the petition. The averments in the affidavit shows that the Last Pay certificate of the petitioner was sent to the Sub Treasury Officer, Parassala on 6-1-2000 under intimation to the petitioner. The petitioner could have drawn the same immediately. It is further averred in the affidavit that the liability certificate of the petitioner was also issued to the Sub Treasury, Parassala on 18-2-2000 under intimation to him. Money was made available at the Sub Treasury as on 18-2-2000. The petitioner could have drawn the said amount as early as on 18-2-2000. The respondents are not liable for any further interest. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the sub Treasury Officer in its letter dated 5-7-2000 had reported that the petitioner had not turned up to the Treasury to collect the amount. The Government had sanctioned Rs. 10,428/- to the petitioner towards interest as per G.O.No.C.3107/2000 / RD dated 19-7-2000. According to them only an amount of Rs. 368/- is due to the petitioner,

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader and perused the records. As per the order of this court, the respondents were directed to pay all the pensionary benefits with 12% interest from 1-11-1999 till date of payment. As per the petitioner an amount of Rs. 29,659/- is due from the respondents towards interest of the pensionary benefits. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is seen that they have calculated interest for arrears of pension and commutation upto 6-1-2000 and for Death cum Retirement Gratuity upto 18-2-2000. Their contention is that they have duly informed the petitioner on the respective dates that the money was made available with the Sub Treasury, Parassala as on 1/2000 and 2/2000. But the petitioner failed to collect the amount from the Treasury. So the respondents have no liability to pay any interest after the date of intimation. The definite case of the petitioner is that no money was remitted in the Treasury and no intimation was also given to him. The respondents have not produced any document to show that the petitioner was duly intimated regarding the availability of the money in the Sub Treasury, Parassala. In the absence of any such evidence, the petitioner is entitled to get 12% interest till the date of payment. Hence, we allow the petition and respondents are directed to pay the interest at the rate of 12% upto 7/2000. Respondents are granted one month's time for payment of the balance amount.