Court held that entitlement to HRA and allowances is not encompassed by prior judgment directives.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed this Contempt of Court Case alleging violation of the directions contained in the Annexure A1 judgment by the respondent. As per the Annexure A1 judgment dated 12.04.2018, the dismissal of the petitioner from service was set aside, holding that the petitioner is entitled to get full back wages and all consequential benefits for the period he has been kept out of duty, and the respondent was directed to issue orders notionally reinstating the petitioner and granting all consequential benefits to the petitioner. The respondent was directed to complete the action and disburse all consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. As the petitioner was superannuated, all duly admissible terminal benefits were directed to be paid within a period of two to three months. It was further directed that, in case the respondent does not pay the said benefits to the petitioner within the said periods, the respondent is liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum thereon from the date of expiry of three months from the date of issuance of certified copy of the judgment to the date of actual payment. Though a Writ Appeal was filed by the respondents in Annexure A1, the same was dismissed by the Annexure A2 judgment dated 12.01.2023. The petitioner filed Contempt of Court Case No.440/2024 earlier, since the amounts paid by the respondent after dismissal of the Writ Appeal did not include interest. This Court closed the Contempt of Court Case No.440/2024 as per the Annexure A3 judgment dated 21.11.2024 without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke fresh proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act if the respondent fails to pay the amount even after the observations made in the said judgment. The observation in the Annexure A3 judgment is that even though the respondent is obliged to pay interest for the period specified in the Annexure A1 judgment, the non-payment of the said amount as of now cannot be treated as a willful disobedience so as to attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Subsequently, the interest amount was paid. Now the contention of the petitioner is that HRA, Canteen Allowance, and Conveyance Allowance are not paid in compliance with the Annexure A1 judgment.

2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P.N.

Mohanan, and the learned Counsel for the respondent, Sri. Latha K. Anand.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the directions in Annexure A1 judgment cover payment of HRA, Canteen Allowance, and Conveyance Allowance. Thus, there is a violation of the Annexure A1 judgment.

4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the directions in the Annexure A1 judgment do not cover payment of HRA, Canteen Allowance, and Conveyance Allowance. When the earlier Contempt Case was filed by the petitioner, his grievance was only with respect to non-payment of interest and not with respect to HRA, Canteen Allowance, and Conveyance Allowance. The specific contention is that this Court was not inclined to grant those benefits to the petitioner.

5. I have considered the rival contentions.

6. In view of the contentions raised before me, the entitlement of the petitioner regarding HRA, Canteen Allowance, and Conveyance Allowance is not a matter to be decided in this Contempt Case. HRA, Canteen Allowance, and Conveyance Allowance are not specifically stated in the Annexure A1 judgment. The respondent has substantially complied with the direction in the Annexure A1 judgment. In such a case, the question of the entitlement of the petitioner regarding HRA, Canteen Allowance, and Conveyance Allowance is to be agitated by the petitioner by instituting