Petitioner sought punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act for the wilful disobedience of a previous court order directing appointment on compassionate grounds. The Court found that the respondents had already passed an order on the matter before the filing of the contempt petition.
Petition dismissed. No costs.
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.1261 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Cont.P.No.1261 of 2022
A.Velvizhi
... Petitioner
Vs.
Special Officer/Secretary, C.L.Spl.88, Nallathur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd, Nallathur Post, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.
... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for the wilful disobedience of the order dated 29.10.2021 made in W.P.No.23526 of 2021.
1/5
Cont.P.No.1261 of 2022
For Petitioner : M/s.A.Pramila For Respondents : Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.J.Hudson Samuel for M/s.Paul & Paul for R4
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging violation on
the part of the respondents to comply with the order of this Court dated
29.10.2021 in W.P.No.23526 of 2021. Para 7 of the said order reads as
under:-
“ It is noticed that the petitioner has also already filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31492 of 2002 on an earlier occasion which came to be disposed on 31.07.2022. Even on that day, the Single Judge of this Court has noted that there is a unexplained and unreasonable delay on the part of the authority concerned. The impugned order has been now passed after a lapse of another 19 years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank Vs. Promila and Another (2020) 2 SCC 729 has held that the appointment on compassionate ground has to be made in terms of the Government Orders prevailing on the date of application. Considering the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the appointment on compassionate ground should be in terms of the prevailing Government order which rules as on the date of the application, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders for appointing the petitioner in terms of the
2/5
Cont.P.No.1261 of 2022
prevailing Government orders in 1998. In case the petitioner was entitled to be appointed in the year 1998 at the time when the initial application/representation sent for appointment, the respondents shall appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. It is also made clear that the respondents shall before appointing the petitioner as compassionate ground shall also be examine whether the family of the petitioner was indeed in indigent circumstances. The said exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that since the petitioner's sister already passed away on 06.03.1998, the service of the petitioner's sister shall be deemed to have been regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 12.03.2021 for the limited purpose of considering the request of the petitioner on compassionate ground.”
2.The order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23526 of 2021 dated
29.10.2021 has merely directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground and in the light of the existing guidelines and Government Orders.
3.The respondents have now passed an order dated 21.07.2022 bearing reference Rc.No.5858/2021/SF. Therefore, there cannot be an order for punishing the respondents for contempt of court as the
3/5
Cont.P.No.1261 of 2022
respondents have now passed an order dated 21.07.2022 bearing reference Rc.No.5858/2021/SF. It is however open for the petitioner to
challenge the same in the manner known to law.
4.Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. No costs.
17.08.2022
Index : Yes/ No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order jas
To
2.Thiru P.Balamurugan, Zonal Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Villupuram Division, Villupuram.
3.Thiru V.Gurusamy, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tindivanam, Villupuram.
4.Thiru.T.Murthy, Special Officer/Secretary, C.L.Spl.88, Nallathur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd,
4/5
Cont.P.No.1261 of 2022
Nallathur Post, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jas
Cont.P.No.1261 of 2022
17.08.2022
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents can be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with a previous order which has since been acted upon.
Whether the contempt petition should be dismissed as the respondents had already passed an order addressing the petitioner's application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indian Bank Vs. Promila and AnotherReferred¶28
Indian Bank Vs. Promila and Another (2020) 2 SCC 729 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Velvizhi
Thiru A.Shanmugasundaram
Thiru P.Balamurugan
Thiru V.Gurusamy
Thiru.T.Murthy
C.Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
