This is a contempt petition challenging non-payment of notional promotion benefits. The court held that since the respondents disbursed retiral dues and any grievance regarding promotion benefits is to be agitated legally, the petition for contempt is not maintainable.
Petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to agitate promotion grievance in proper manner.
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.
Cont.P.No.1199 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
Contempt Petition No.1199 of 2020
T.Mani .. Petitioner -Vs1. Thiru Srinivas R Reddy, I.F.S., The Managing Director Tamilnadu Tea Plantation Corporation Ltd., Orange Grove Road, Coonoor – 643 101 The Nilgiris. 2. Thiru N.Jayaraj, I.F.S., The General Manager Tamilnadu Tea Plantation Corporation Ltd., Orange Grove Road, Coonoor – 643 101 The Nilgiris. 3. Thiru J.Beno Assistant Manager Tamilnadu Tea Plantation Corporation Ltd., Orange Grove Road, Coonoor – 643 101 The Nilgiris. .. Respondents
Prayer : Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to haul the respondents for committing contempt of court orders made in W.P.No.39275 of 2003 dated 30.10.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Suresh
Page 1 of 5
Cont.P.No.1199 of 2020
O R D E R
This Contempt Petition has been filed for the alleged disobedience of the
orders of this Court dated 30.10.2018 made in W.P.No.39275 of 2003.
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, pursuant to the order dated 30.10.2018, the respondents by various proceedings dated 18.06.2020 and
13.07.2020 disbursed certain amounts as retiral due payable to the petitioner.
that was pending for some years before this Court which was ultimately decided only on 30.10.2018, the petitioner's promotional due was not considered and had
it been considered in proper perspective by the employer, the petitioner's services and salary benefits would have been different or enhanced and therefore, based on such enhanced salary, the due could have been calculated and paid by the respondents, which they have not done so far and therefore, in respect of the remaining balance, which according to the petitioner since has not so far been
done by the employer, it amounts to contempt and hence the present contempt petition has been filed, he contended.
Page 2 of 5
Cont.P.No.1199 of 2020
reads thus,
“ 16. In that view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order of punishment is liable to be interfered with and accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. It is made clear that, the respondents are at liberty to recover the rental arrears, if any, the arrears of pay or pensionary benefits, if any, in view of the said setting aside of the order of punishment passed against the petitioner, such emoluments shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
and other service benefits payable to the petitioner, paid the same and in this regard the aforesaid proceedings also have been issued, which are filed along with
the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.
with regard to the notional promotion and for corresponding pay benefits, it is for the petitioner to agitate the issue in the manner known to law and therefore if such a grievance is projected by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that
contempt petition cannot be filed as prima facie this Court feels that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Page 3 of 5
Cont.P.No.1199 of 2020
respondents have not willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court dated 30.10.2018.
the issue if he still has any grievance against the respondents, in the manner
known to law.
SD/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)
kst
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
IM/22/01/2021
To
Page 4 of 5
Cont.P.No.1199 of 2020
Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's failure to receive notional promotion benefits amounts to willful disobedience warranting a contempt petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T. Mani
Srinivas R Reddy
N. Jayaraj
J. Beno
R. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
