Dismissed

M.Kavitha v. S.Kannappan

Madras HC5 Nov 2015CONT P/1463/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court accepted that the respondents had complied with previous directions by granting temporary approval. Directing the school management to facilitate salary claims, the Court closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Contest petition closed; school management directed to facilitate salary claim for the petitioner within four weeks.

M.Kavitha Vs S.Kannappan — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 05.11.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶6

Cont.P.No.1463 of 2015

¶7

M.Kavitha .. Petitioner
Versus
1.S.Kannappan,
Director of School Education,
D.P.I.Compound,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
2.P.Usha,
The Chief Educational Officer,
Office of the Chief Educational Officer,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3.P.Noor Mohammed,
The District Educational Officer,
Office of the District Educational Officer,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram. .. Respondents
PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents
herein for their willful and deliberate non-compliance to
the directions of this Court dated 16.04.2015 made in
M.P.No.3 of 2015 in W.P.No.11017 of 2015.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mrs.G.Thilakavathi
For Respondents : Mrs.P.Kavitha
Government Advocate

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents placing on record the proceedings dated 04.11.2015 passed by the third respondent / the District Educational Officer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kancheepuram, stated that the order has been complied with

¶11

¶12

by giving temporary approval to the petitioner, namely, M.Kavitha.

¶13

2. Mrs.G.Thilakavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner also agreed with the said statement and requested this Court to direct the school management to make necessary claim for salary to the petitioner for the period of approval by the third respondent.

¶14

3. In the interest of the teacher, the school management is directed to make further claim for payment of salary to the petitioner preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed.

¶16

Dated at Madras this the day of 2015.

¶17

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶18

SS/CO/22/12/2015

¶19

One CC to The Government Pleader, Sr.No. 14002

¶20

¶21

The Director of School Education, D.P.I.Compound, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

¶22

The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶23

The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Kancheepuram District,

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kancheepuram.

M.Kavitha v. S.Kannappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kavitha v. S.Kannappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Subramaniam Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

M/s.Si Media Polytech Vs The Assistant Commercial Tax

Murugan Vs the Managing Director

Yesu Chandra Bose Vs R.Rajagopal IAS

The Corporate Manager of Rc Vs Ilabngovan

The Managing Director Vs Valarmathi