Disposed¶28

Tmt. D. Vennila v. Tmt. N. Pushparani

Madras HC24 Jul 2025CONT P/2316/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition closed - compliance recorded - incentive increment M.A. 2013, annual increment 2013, selection grade 2023, earned leave - District Educational Officer, Erode - W.P.No.6522 of 2025 dated 26.02.2025 - Na.ka.No.1893/B3/2024 - Section 11 Contempt of Courts Act - no costs - C.V. Karthikeyan, J. - Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition closed with no costs after recording that the proposal forwarded by the second respondent had been complied with in its entirety by the first respondent; no punishment imposed. ¶28

Tmt. D. Vennila Vs Tmt. N. Pushparani — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Cont.P.No.2316 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

Cont.P.No.2316 of 2025

Tmt.D.Vennila

... Petitioner

Vs.

Tmt.N.Pushparani, M.A., M.Ed., The District Educational Officer, Erode, Erode District.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order passed in W.P.No.6522 of 2025 dated 26.02.2025.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan For Respondent : Mr.S.Prabhakaran, GA

¶14

Page No.1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

Cont.P.No.2316 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order passed in W.P.No.6522 of 2025 dated 26.02.2025.

¶19

The Writ Petition had been filed in the nature of Mandamus

¶20

seeking a direction against the first respondent to provide benefits as incentive increment for M.A., from 2013 and annual increment from 2013 and selection grade from 2023, earned leave by considering the recommendation / proposal made by the second respondent dated 24.02.2022 and 25.02.2025.

¶21

3. It had been now stated on behalf of the first respondent that the proposal as forwarded by the second respondent had been complied with by the first respondent. The copy of the proposal as forwarded by the second respondent which had been signed on 28.04.2025 and the copy of the order which had been signed on 15.04.2025 in Na.ka.No.1893/B3/2024, complying with the said proposal in entirety

¶22

Page No.2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

Cont.P.No.2316 of 2025

¶25

had been forwarded to this Court.

¶26

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the incentive increment had not been granted.

¶27

5. Unless the same had been forwarded by the second respondent, the first respondent would not be in a position to grant the same. The proposal which had been forwarded by the second respondent is complied with in its entirety by the first respondent.

¶28

6. Recording the same, this Contempt Petition is closed. No costs.

¶29

Index : Yes /No 24.07.2025 Internet : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking gsk

¶30

Page No.3 of 4

¶31

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

¶32

Cont.P.No.2316 of 2025

¶33

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.