Disposed

S.Gunasekaran v. Ravindan

Madras HC6 Sept 2019CONT P(MD)/1010/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with an earlier order directing revision of pay and pension benefits. The court observed that the underlying matter was disposed of via a subsequent order dated 17.08.2019, leaving no question to adjudicate, and thus closed the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was closed with liberty to challenge the order of 17.08.2019.

S.Gunasekaran Vs Ravindan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Cont P(MD)No.1010 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 06.09.2019 Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

Cont P(MD)No.1010 of 2019

¶6

S.Gunasekaran .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Ravindran The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Kumbakonam Ltd., 27, New Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam – 612 001.

¶7

2.Anusam, The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Kumbakonam Ltd., Kumbakonam Region, Kumbakonam – 612 001.

¶8

3.C.Arumugam The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. .. Respondents

¶9

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 praying to punish the contemnors/respondents for their willful deliberate disobedience of the order of this court made in WP(MD) No.19624 of 2018 dated 11.9.2018.

¶10

Prayer in WP(MD). 19624/ 2018 :

¶11

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to revise the petitioners pay as per the settlement under section 12(3) of the I.D. Act dated 04.01.2018 with retrospective effect from 01.09.2016 and consequently directing the respondents to revise and re-fix his retirements benefits and to disburse difference amounts in his monthly pension, commuted value gratuity, earned leave salary to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% per annum payable from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 01.09.2016 to till the date of actual payment within the time limit

¶12

1/2

¶13

Cont P(MD)No.1010 of 2019

¶14

that may be fixed by this Court.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner has come forward with the contempt petition stating that the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.19624 of 2018 dated 11.09.2018 has not been complied with.

¶17

2.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that through there is a delay, the order passed by this Court on 11.09.2018 has been complied with. He has also produced a copy of the order dated 17.08.2019.

¶18

3.In reply to the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that monetary benefits had not been extended to the petitioner.

¶19

4.The prayer sought in the writ petition is only to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 30.08.2018. Since the said representation had already been disposed of vide order dated 17.08.2019, nothing survives for adjudication in this contempt petition and hence, it is closed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2019, he is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶20

// True Copy //

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶22

+1 CC to M/s.D.SIVARAMAN, Advocate ( SR-85748[F] dated 06/09/2019 )

¶23

Cont P(MD)No.1010 of 2019 06.09.2019

¶24

mj JMN(19.09.2019) 2P : 2C

¶25

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

¶26

2/2

S.Gunasekaran v. Ravindan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Gunasekaran v. Ravindan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Rangan, Vs The Director of

K.M.Gunasekaran Vs D.Sabitha IAS

A.Chidambaram Vs The Principal Secretary to

S.Juliya Vs Mr. Samuvel

D.Devaraj, Vs v. Balachandrababu

The Correspondent, Vs Mr. Natarajan