Dismissed

R.Paneerselvam v. Hithesh Kumar S.Makwana IAS

Madras HC21 Feb 2023CONT P/508/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed a contempt petition filed to punish respondents for allegedly disobeying a 2017 order regarding pension benefits. The Court found no disobedience as the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had implemented the decision to count 50% of non-provincialised services pending verification.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition closed; no costs awarded to either side.

R.Paneerselvam Vs Hithesh Kumar… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CONT.P.No.508 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

CONT.P.No.508 of 2022 in

¶7

W.P.No.11746 of 2014

¶8

1.R.Panneerselvam

¶9

2.G.L.Hariharan

¶10

3.N.Rangasamy

¶11

4.M.Muthian

¶12

5.S.K.Gomathinayagam

¶13

6.S.A.Ramaswamy

¶14

7.D.Mani

¶15

8.J.Raghunanthan

¶16

9.N.Annamalai

¶17

10.P.Mahandaran

¶18

11.R.Sethuraman

¶19

12.S.Perumal

¶20

13.N.Gunasekaran

¶21

14.R.Sethumadhavan

¶22

15.C.Govindasamy

¶23

16.P.Pitchaikani

¶24

17.J.Sekar

¶25

Page 1 of 6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

CONT.P.No.508 of 2022

¶28

18.T.Sriramaselvan

¶29

19.A.Vaikunta Perumal

¶30

20.A.Paramasivam ... Petitioners

¶31

Vs.

¶32

1.Mr.Hithesh Kumar S.Makwana I.A.S., The Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶33

2.Mr.Shunchonngam Jatak Chiru I.A.S., The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. ... Respondents

¶34

Prayer: Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent for committing wilful disobedience of the order of this High Court passed in W.P.No.11746 of 2014 dated 03.11.2017.

¶35

For Petitioners : Ms.M.N.Sumathy For R1 : No Appearance For R2 : Mr.S.Silambanan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.D.Veerasekaran [For TNHB]

¶36

Page 2 of 6

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

CONT.P.No.508 of 2022

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

The Contempt Petition filed to punish the respondents for committing wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11746 of 2014 dated 03.11.2017.

¶41

The learned counsel for the respondents made a submission that the order passed by this Court had been implemented by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in its proceedings dated 27.01.2023. Accordingly, the Board has taken a decision enabling the petitioners to get the benefit of counting of 50% of the services for their retirement benefit for their non-provincialised service. In this regard, the Financial Advisor was requested to verify the evidences furnished by the pensioners for the purpose of revising their pensions.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioners raised an objection by stating that the monetary benefits are yet to be paid. In this regard, the directions issued by this court is to be taken note of. This Court directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the writ petitioners for counting half of their services rendered on a consolidated pay in accordance with Rule 11 of

¶43

Page 3 of 6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

CONT.P.No.508 of 2022

¶46

the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

¶47

The said order was passed on 03.11.2017 and the contempt petition

¶48

was filed in the year 2022, after a lapse of about 5 years. However, the respondents, at this length of time has implemented the orders extending the benefit of counting 50% of services to the petitioner subject to verification of the Service Records by the Finance Advisor.

¶49

Thus, this Court do not find any disobedience or otherwise in

¶50

respect of the directions issued by this Court. The respondents shall ensure that the orders passed by the Housing Board is implemented by revising the pension by verifying the service records.

¶51

Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands closed. No costs.

¶52

21.02.2023

¶53

Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶54

Page 4 of 6

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

CONT.P.No.508 of 2022

¶57

¶58

1.The Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶59

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶60

Page 5 of 6

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

CONT.P.No.508 of 2022

¶63

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶64

Jeni

¶65

CONT.P.No.508 of 2022

¶66

21.02.2023

¶67

Page 6 of 6

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Paneerselvam v. Hithesh Kumar S.Makwana IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Paneerselvam v. Hithesh Kumar S.Makwana IAS

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

Sampoornam Vs P. Kailasam

R.Sudhakar Vs v. Ranganathan

M/S. Cedilla Vs M/S. Sai Images

Rangarajan Vs Chandrasekaran

O.P.Bhaanumathee Vs O.P.Sivakumar

R.Mani Vs N.Arukkayammal(Died)