Annexure R2(a) letter produced along with the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent indicates that, in compliance with the directions contained in Annexure 1 judgment the respondents have already taken a decision to reckon the prior service rendered by the petitioner in KSRTC for the purpose of fixation of pension, subject to realisation of pro-rata liability of pension from the KSRTC. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the rider imposed with respect to getting payment of pro-rata liability from KSRTC, cannot be sustained. It is also alleged that the respondents as well as the authorities of the KSRTC are not taking any effective steps to settle the issue and to effect payment of monthly pension and terminal benefits at the revised rate. 2. However, this court is of the opinion that there is no necessity to proceed further in this Contempt of Court Case because the respondents have already taken a Cont. Case (C). No. 81 of 2014 -2-
decision to reckon the past service of the petitioner. If there exists further grievance to the petitioner in any manner, it is left open to seek appropriate remedy before appropriate forum.
3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, this Contempt of Court is hereby closed reserving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps as mentioned above.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE /true copy/ P. A. to Judge Pn