D.Vijila, v. Dr.R.Pandian
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner, an Assistant Professor, sought punishment for the Respondent's alleged non-payment of salary increment despite appointment approval. The Court observed that the appointment was approved and salary disbursed, concluding there was no disobedience.
What did the court decide?
Contempt petition closed; liberty granted to work out remedy in manner known to law for non-payment of increment.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.10.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
CONT.P(MD)No.381 of 2016 in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015 in W.P(MD)No.23320 of 2015
D.Vijila, Assistant Professor (English), Sarah Tucker College (Autonomous), Tirunelveli-627 007, Tirunelveli District.
..Petitioner / petitioner
Vs.
Dr.R.Pandian, The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli.
..Contemnor/2nd respondent
Prayer: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying this Court to punish the respondent herein for his deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 22.12.2015 in M.P(MD)No.2 of 2015 in Writ Petition (MD)No.23320 of 2015.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent willful disobedience of the earlier order requires punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
D.Vijila
- respondent
Dr.R.Pandian
Coram
K.Kalynasundaram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court