G. SUKUMARIAMMA Vs. DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ petitioner was the Secretary of the third respondent Society who retired on 31/3/2010. Prior to the retirement, she was suspended from service with effect from 18/3/2010. Though an enquiry was stated to have been initiated, it did not result in any final proceedings. Contending that petitioner was not given the retirement benefits due to her, she approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.2152/2014. It was noticed by this court that the 6th respondent Society had not forwarded the pension contribution of the petitioner and the pension docket. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 12/10/2015 the writ petition was disposed of with the following directions;

(2.) The Society filed a Review Petition as R.P.No.1124/2015 to review the above judgment, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble judge on 4/12/2015 evidenced by Ext.P6. Thereafter, the above judgment was carried in appeal by the Society, by filing W.A.No468/2016. The Division Bench by Ext.P7 judgment dated 17/3/2016 noted that the claim set up by the Society before the Division Bench was that the audit has been completed and the amounts were due from her, for which an arbitration case has been instituted. The Division Bench held that, it has to take its logical course, but not by detaining the DCRG amount or pension component with the employer or the Pension Board. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by Ext.P7 judgment dated 17/3/2016 holding that the non release of the DCRG and pension, as demonstrated in the case amounted to gross violation of the Fundamental Rights, as well. This judgment has become final in the absence of any challenge by the Society.

(3.) Alleging that the Society committed gross contempt of court by the willful disobedience of the direction contained in Ext.P5 judgment, Contempt Case (Civil) No.1529/2016 was filed by the petitioner. By Ext.P8 dated 5/07/2019, the learned Single Judge before whom the contempt case was placed ,found that there were prima facie materials to indicate that there was willful contempt and the mater was liable to be referred to the Division Bench for further proceedings. The conduct of the Society in not implementing the order of the court, came under severe criticism by the learned Judge, though in the most modest words that may be used. The court noted that during the pendency of the contempt case, several directions had been issued by the Court on 23/3/2017, 27/6/2018 and 6/12/2018, to enable the parties to ensure compliance of the directions. When the counsel for the Pension Board submitted that they have not received any papers for sanctioning pension, this Court observed that either of the respondents were playing hide and seek game in the matter. Directions were issued to file an affidavit before that Bench. It was also noted that pension was not sanctioned to the petitioner, since in the pension documents it was recorded that she was dismissed from service in the year 2012 , whereas as per the service records, she attained the age of superannuation on 31/3/2010, after suspension on 17/3/2010. It was stated by the society that, later she was dismissed from service with effect from 18/3/2010. The court concluded by observing that;