Dismissed

S.S.Rahmathullah, v. K.P.Karthikeyan, I.A.S.

Madras HC13 Apr 2023CONT P(MD)/700/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

disciplinary order was not served. Held. The respondent is not liable for contempt and the impugned order is kept in abeyance. Petitioners allowed to hold promoted post during main Writ Petition disposal. Contempt petition closed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order kept in abeyance; petitioners allowed to continue in promoted post; contempt petition closed.

S.S.Rahmathullah, Vs K.P.Karthikeyan, I.A.S. — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CONT P(MD)No.700 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

CONT P(MD)No.700 of 2023

1.S.S.Rahmathullah

2.R.Kandappan

... Petitioners

vs.

K.P.Karthikeyan, I.A.S., District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli 627 009.

¶12

... Contemnor/Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying and not complying with the order of this Court, dated 24.03.2023, in W.P.(MD)No.6511 of 2023.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondent : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

CONT P(MD)No.700 of 2023

¶19

This Contempt Petition is filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 24.03.2023 passed in the Writ Petition W.P.(MD)No.6511 of 2023.

¶20

The contention of the petitioners is that they were granted promotion in the year 2004. The Honourable Supreme Court has directed to revise the seniority list from the year 2009 only. In such circumstances, the petitioners who were promoted in the year 2004 cannot be directed to hold a lower post by granting revision order. For this reason, this Court granted interim direction to keep in the impugned order in abeyance.

¶21

However, the contention of the respondent is that the interim order was granted on 24.03.2023, but the impugned order was already passed on 21.03.2023 and served on 23.03.2023, hence the order could not be complied with. After taking into this fact also, this Court has granted an interim direction in the writ petition to keep the impugned order in abeyance.

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

CONT P(MD)No.700 of 2023

¶25

Hence the contention of the respondents cannot be entertained. Again, this Court is directing the respondent to keep the impugned order in the writ petition in abeyance. The respondent needed not precipitate the issue. The respondent is directed to allow the petitioners to continue in the promoted post until the disposal of the writ petition. The parties are directed to contest the issues in the main writ petition.

¶26

With the above said observation, the contempt petition is closed. No

¶27

costs.

¶28

Index : Yes / No 13.04.2023 Internet : Yes Tmg

¶29

To District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli 627 009.

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

¶32

CONT P(MD)No.700 of 2023

¶33

S.SRIMATHY, J

¶34

Tmg

¶35

Order made in CONT P(MD)No.700 of 2023

¶36

13.04.2023

¶37

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

¶38

4/4

S.S.Rahmathullah, v. K.P.Karthikeyan, I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.S.Rahmathullah, v. K.P.Karthikeyan, I.A.S.

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

A.Arokia Mary Vs the Secrtary

N.Ulaganathan, Vs the Registrar (Housing)

S.Muthuraman Vs The Secretary to Govt.

S.Sree Thangaraj Vs Mr.M.Arvind

Paramasivam, Vs Ramesh

P.Vijayalakshmi Vs The Joint Director of Hr. Sec. Education