M.Ligi Rethna Bai Vs C.Nedunchezhian Ias. — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

M.Ligi Rethna Bai Vs C.Nedunchezhian Ias. — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the contempt petitions were closed with no costs, the Court finding substantial compliance and no wilful disobedience, and connected sub applications were also closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether non-payment of the interest portion (18%) on the belatedly disbursed pension, as per the order of the Court, amounts to contempt (wilful disobedience). +2 more

Court's answer

The Court accepts the difficulty expressed by the government: paying 18% interest to these petitioners would lead all similarly placed persons to demand interest for belated payment of pension and benefits, causing severe financial constraint to be met from public funds.

Ratio / Principle

On payment of pension pursuant to the Court's orders, the government substantially complied with the orders dated 09.01.2019; hence there is no wilful disobedience as alleged by the petitioners, save for the genuine difficulties expressed by the contemnors.

Key takeaways

Since the government's writ appeal was dismissed for huge delay (about four years), it would be appropriate to dismiss/close the contempt petitions for the same reason of delay (about five years); the Division Bench's remark that the contempt occasioned the writ appeal 'seems otherwise'.ratio¶70
Observation deprecating the practice in Kanyakumari District of preferring police complaints, procuring FIRs against officials, and threatening suicide before the District Collector to secure regularization — a 'modus operandi' that cannot be permitted and ought to be curtailed; the Government alone is empowered to grant regularization.obiter¶80
Observation that the government has power to regularize by granting consolidated pay for some period and thereafter bringing the individual into the time scale of pay; the government, handling public money with full data of income and expenditure, has full power to fix the pay.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), S. Srimathy, J — Contempt petitions under Section 11, Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (as printed in the judgment) alleging wilful disobedience of orders dated 09.01.2019 in W.P.(MD)Nos.1637 and 1636 of 2015, which granted pension to two Part-Time Sweepers counting 50% of pre-provincialised service under Rule 11(4), Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and interest for belated disbursement. Pension stood disbursed on 09.07.2019 and 09.12.2019; the State's belated writ appeals (delays of 1345 and 1321 days) were rejected in SR stage; the SLP in one case was dismissed with the question of law left open and declared non-binding, the other SLP pending. The contempt petitions were themselves filed after about 1825 days. Held: (i) disbursement of pension amounted to substantial compliance; hence no wilful disobedience; (ii) as the State's own writ appeal failed for huge delay, the contempt deserved to be dismissed for the same reason of delay; (iii) 18% interest was refused, the Court accepting the government's difficulty that similarly placed persons would make like demands and the burden would fall on public funds. Obiter: police complaints/FIRs and suicide threats as a 'modus operandi' for regularization deprecated; Government alone empowered to regularize, including via consolidated pay followed by time scale. Contempt petitions closed, no costs.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders dated 09.01.2019 passed in W.P.(MD)No.1637 of 2015 and W.P.(MD)No.1636 of 2015 allowing the writ petitions (grant of pension counting 50% pre-provincialised service); alleged non-compliance confined to payment of interest for belated disbursement of pension.¶43
Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) · 09.01.2019
Prior proceeding
M.Ligi Rethna Bai appointed as part time sweeper on 14.12.1990.¶45
Prior proceeding
Paul Daniel appointed on 02.12.1992.¶46
Prior proceeding
Based on long service and Court orders, the petitioners' services (as Part Time Sweepers) were regularized; they received salary as per the order of regularization.¶50
Prior proceeding
Petitioners relied on Rule 11(4), Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, to add 50% of service rendered in non-provincialised service for pension; on rejection they approached the Court and the writ petitions were allowed.¶51
Prior proceeding
Accountant General disbursed pension vide order dated 09.07.2019 to M.Ligi Retina Bai (sic) and on 09.12.2019 to D.Paul Daniel.¶51
Prior proceeding
Respondents preferred belated writ appeals — delay of 1345 days (M.Ligi Retina Bai) and 1321 days (D.Paul Daniel).¶52
Prior proceeding
Hon'ble Division Bench refused to condone the delay and rejected the writ appeal in SR stage itself.¶56
Prior proceeding
Government preferred SLP; the SLP in D.Paul Daniel's case was dismissed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court leaving the question of law open and holding the dismissal of the SLP shall not be treated as binding precedent.¶57
Prior proceeding
The SLP in M.Ligi Retina Bai's case is still pending.¶57
Prior proceeding
Contempt petitions filed after about five years; plea of belated contempt raised by contemnors was rejected, the Court holding the contempt maintainable and taking cognizance with issuance of statutory notice.¶58
Prior proceeding
1st contemnor (Accountant General) filed counter submitting that disbursement is made only based on government orders and prayed to be exonerated from contempt.¶58
Prior proceeding
Court accepted the said submission and exonerated the 1st respondent; contempt proceedings continued against the other contemnors.¶58
Prior proceeding
In the present proceedings, statutory notice was issued and the contemnors are present before the Court.¶44