Disposed¶40

R.Sundararajan v. N.Mirunalini and Another

Madras HC9 Feb 2026CONT P/4208/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CONT P No. 4208 of 2025, decided 09-02-2026 by S.M.Subramaniam J. and C.Kumarappan J. Contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act for alleged wilful disobedience/non-compliance of orders dated 20.09.2023 in W.A.No.1181 of 2021; petitioner R.Sundararajan reinstated by District Collector, Perambalur (RC.No.A3/5412/2020, dated 24.01.2025); dispute over consequential service benefits; no willful disobedience found; contempt petition closed, no costs; permissible benefits to be granted.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition closed with the above observations (no willful disobedience found; permissible consequential service benefits to be granted to the reinstated petitioner); No costs. ¶40

R.Sundararajan Vs N.Mirunalini and Another — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

2026:MHC:561

¶2

CONT P No. 4208 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 09-02-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶9

CONT P No. 4208 of 2025

R.Sundararajan

..Petitioner(s)

N.Mirunalini and Another

¶14

The Personal Assistant (General),

¶15

To District Collector,

¶16

Perambalur district,

¶17

Perambalur

¶18

N.Mirunalini The District Revenue Officer, Perambalur District,

¶19

The District Revenue Officer,

¶20

Perambalur

¶21

..Contemnor(s)

¶22

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents herein for his wilful disobedience and noncompliance of the orders of this Court made in W.A.No.1181 of 2021, dated 20.09.2023 under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.

¶23

Page1 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

CONT P No. 4208 of 2025

¶26

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Singaravbelan, Senior Counsel For Mr. T. Elumalai, For Contemnor(s): Dr.S.Suriya Additional Government Pleader

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶29

Contempt petition has been instituted to punish respondents for their willful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 20.09.2023 in WA.No.1181 of 2021.

¶30

Petitioner was dismissed from service, and order of dismissal came to be challenged in writ petition. Relief sought for in the writ petition is to quash the dismissal order. Writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 08.11.2019. Thereafter, petitioner preferred writ appeal in WA.No.1181 of 2021, and Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal by order dated 20.09.2023.

¶31

It is not in dispute that order of the Division Bench of this Court has been implemented by the District Collector, Perambalur, vide his Proceedings in RC.No.A3/5412/2020, dated 24.01.2025. Consequently, petitioner has been reinstated into service.

¶32

4.Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel would submit that all

¶33

other consequential service benefits are not granted, and order reinstating the

¶34

Page2 of 4

¶35

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

¶36

CONT P No. 4208 of 2025

¶37

petitioner was silent about such benefits.

¶38

In the absence of any specific Court orders, contempt may not arise,

¶39

since there is no willful disobedience. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the dismissal order, which was granted by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, whatever benefits as permissible is to be granted in respect of the dismissed employee, who was reinstated pursuant to the order of this Court. However, it is made clear that respondents have not committed any willful disobedience of the orders of this Court.

¶40