Dismissed

D. Vasumathi Amma v. S. Krishnan

Madras HC21 Feb 2020CONT P(MD)/132/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court closed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of a prior order regarding pension arrears. The Court held that since the Government had ordered partial reimbursement and the petitioner retained liberty to challenge the remaining balance, the alleged disobedience was not wilful.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to challenge part rejection of claim over Rs.72,611/-; contempt petition closed.

D. Vasumathi Amma Vs S. Krishnan — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Cont.P(MD) No.132 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.02.2020

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH Contempt Petition(MD) No.132 of 2020 in W.P.(MD) No.9741 of 2019

¶6

D.Vasumathi Amma

¶7

..Petitioner/Petitioner

¶8

¶9

S.Krishnan, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Government, Department of Finance (Pension), Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. Contemnor/Respondent No.1

¶10

PRAYER: Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying to punish the contemnor/respondent for his wilful deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court in W.P. (MD) No.9741 of 2019 dated 24.04.2019.

¶11

Prayer in WP(MD). 9741 of 2019 :

¶12

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd and 4th respondent in NAKA.No.21977/2015/L2 (27) dated 29.01.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent i.e., the secretary to Govt., Finance (Pension) department, Chennai to Sanction the amount to the petitioner sine the claim of the petitioner since the claim of the petitioner cannot been rejected on the only ground that the disease is not included in the approved list of the Government.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thampi

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.M.Jeyakumar Additional Government Pleader

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 24.04.2019, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government has passed an order in G.O.(Rt).No.103 dated 20.02.2020 ordering reimbursement of a sum of Rs.72,611/-.

¶17

Cont.P(MD) No.132 of 2020

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the total claim is over and above the sum ordered and therefore the entire amount has not been reimbursed. This Court is of the view that in case the petitioner is disputing the part rejection of the claim, it is always open to her to challenge the same separately. The reimbursement amount now ordered for Rs.72,611/- can be received by the petitioner for the present.

¶19

In the light of the above observations, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the part rejection of her claim for medical reimbursement of over and above Rs.72,611/-, as ordered in G.O.(Rt).No.103 dated 20.02.2020. With the above liberty, the disobedience alleged cannot be termed as wilful in nature and this Contempt Petition is closed.

¶20

Assistant Registrar

¶21

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶22

vrn

¶23

¶24

The Secretary to Government, Department of Finance (Pension), Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶25

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-7809[F] dated 24/02/2020 )

¶26

+1 CC to M/s.V.M.BALAMOHAN THAMBI, Advocate ( SR-7916[F] dated 24/02/2020 )

¶27

Contempt Petition(MD) No.132 of 2020

¶28

in W.P.(MD) No.9741 of 2019 21.02.2020

¶29

KK/09.03.2020/2P-4C

¶30

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

D. Vasumathi Amma v. S. Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Vasumathi Amma v. S. Krishnan

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

Ambika Vs The District Revenue Officer

S. Pannerselvam Vs the Managing Director

P.Manikandan Vs The Secretary to Govt.

M.Dhanasekaran Vs a.M.S.G.Ashokan

V. Muthupandi Vs Gnanasekaran, I.A.S

D. Mariammal Vs Beelarajesh IAS