Disposed¶89

S.Chenniappan v. C.Jothi Venkateswaran

Madras HC10 Feb 2026CONT P/732/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court contempt petitions closed 10-02-2026; no wilful disobedience found; orders dated 13.02.2020 in W.A.Nos.1216 to 1218 of 2016; UGC scale of pay; UGC Regulations; M.Phil./Ph.D.; Career Advancement Scheme (CAS); College Management order communicated 21.01.2022; SLP dismissed by Supreme Court 14.02.2025; Bishop Thorp College; Director of Collegiate Education; Bharathiar University; petitioners to work out remedies in manner known to law.

What did the court decide?

No contempt sanction imposed; the Court found no wilful disobedience and the Contempt Petitions stand closed, with the connected sub-applications also closed; petitioners left to work out their remedies in the manner known to law if otherwise qualified under the UGC Regulations. ¶89

S.Chenniappan Vs C.Jothi Venkateswaran — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶89

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 13.02.2020 in W.A.Nos.1216 to 1218 of 2016, warranting exercise of contempt jurisdiction. +1 more

¶72

Court's answer

This Court does not find any wilful disobedience of its order warranting exercise of contempt jurisdiction.

¶82

Ratio / Principle

It is for the petitioners to work out their remedy in the manner known to law, if they are otherwise qualified under the UGC Regulations.

¶82

Key takeaways

The directions issued by the Division Bench were to take a decision if the petitioners are otherwise qualified and possess the requisite qualification as per the UGC Regulations; the College Management's order determining qualifications falls within this scope.ratio¶81
The petitioners must establish their entitlement with reference to the educational qualifications they possess, which must be in consonance with the UGC Regulations.obiter¶88

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras HC (S.M. Subramaniam & C. Kumarappan JJ.), 10-02-2026: Contempt petitions (CONT.P.Nos.732, 733, 734 & 1152 of 2021, with SUB APPL Nos. 350 to 353 of 2022) under Section 11, Contempt of Courts Act, seeking punishment of the Director of Collegiate Education, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, the Registrar, Bharathiar University, and the Bishop/Secretary of Bishop Thorp College for alleged wilful disobedience of the orders dated 13.02.2020 in W.A.Nos.1216 to 1218 of 2016 (confirming the common order dated 30.04.2015 in W.P.No.29772 and 10366 of 2004 and 8989 of 2011), said orders having allegedly not been implemented by extending UGC scale of pay; the SLP against the Writ Appeal order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14.02.2025. The College Management had, by communication dated 21.01.2022, recorded that the petitioner-lecturers drew UGC scale of pay from the date of appointment till May 2003 but, not possessing M.Phil./Ph.D., had their pay reduced per the UGC Regulations and were ineligible for UGC scale of pay under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). Holding that the Division Bench directions required the Management only to take a decision whether the lecturers possessed the requisite qualifications as per the UGC Regulations, the Court found no wilful disobedience warranting contempt jurisdiction, closed the petitions and the connected sub-applications, and left the petitioners to work out their remedies in the manner known to law if otherwise qualified.

¶1

2026:MHC:579

¶2

CONT.P.Nos.732, 733, 734 & 1152 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 10-02-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CONT.P.Nos. 732, 733, 734 & 1152 of 2021 AND SUB APPL Nos. 350 to 353 of 2022

¶9

CONT P No. 733 of 2021:

S.Chenniappan

..Petitioner

C.Jothi Venkateswaran The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶14

Dr.K.Murugan Registrar, The Bharathiar University, Coimbatore - 641 046.

¶15

Rev.Dr.D.Chandrasekaran Bishop and Chairman, Bishop Thorp College, Dharmapuram, Tirupur District.

¶16

..Contemnor(s)

¶17

CONT P No. 733 of 2021:

D.Ubendhiran

..Petitioner

__________ Page No.1 of 8

¶22

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

¶23

CONT.P.Nos.732, 733, 734 & 1152 of 2021

¶24

1. C.Jothi Venkateswaran

¶25

The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶26

Dr.V.Kalaiselvi

¶27

Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Race Course Road, Coimbatore - 18.

¶28

Dr.K.Murugan, Registrar, The Bharthiar University, Coimbatore - 46.

¶29

Rev.Dr.D.Chandrasekaran The Secretary, Bishop Thorp College, Diocesan Ofdice, Puthur, Trichy - 17

¶30

..Respondent(s)

¶31

CONT P No. 734 of 2021:

S.Vasudevan

..Petitioner

Dr.C.Jothi Venkateswaran The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶36

Dr.V.Kalaiselvi Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Race Course Road, Coimbatore - 18.

¶37

Dr.K.Murugan, Registrar, The Bharthiar University, Coimbatore - 46

¶38

Rev.Dr.D.Chandrasekaran The Secretary, Bishop Thorp College, Diocesan Ofdice, Puthur, Trichy - 17

¶39

..Respondent(s)

¶40

__________ Page No.2 of 8

¶41

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

¶42

CONT.P.Nos.732, 733, 734 & 1152 of 2021

¶43

..Petitioners

¶44

CONT P No. 1152 of 2021:

¶45

1. K.Selvarajan

¶46

V. Annathurai

¶47

¶48

RT. Rev. Dr.D.Chandrasekaran The Secretary, Bishop Thorp College, Dharapuram 638 657.

¶49

..Respondent(s)

¶50

CONT P No. 732 of 2021

¶51

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying to issue notice to respondents and punish them for disobeying the common order dated 13.02.2020 passed in W.A.Nos.1216 to 1218 of 2016 confirming the common order dated 30.04.2015, passed in W.P.No.29772 and 10366 of 2004 and 8989 of 2011.

¶52

CONT P No. 733 of 2021

¶53

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying to issue notice to respondents and punish them for disobeying the common order dated 13.02.2020 passed in W.A.No.1216 of 2016 confirming the common order dated 30.04.2015, passed in W.P.No.10366 of 2004.

¶54

CONT P No. 734 of 2021

¶55

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying to issue notice to respondents and punish them for disobeying the common order dated 13.02.2020 passed in W.A.No.1218 of 2016 confirming the common order dated 30.04.2015, passed in W.P.No.8989 of 2011.

¶56

__________ Page No.3 of 8

¶57

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

¶58

CONT.P.Nos.732, 733, 734 & 1152 of 2021

¶59

CONT P No. 1152 of 2021

¶60

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying to issue notice to the respondent and to punish the respondent for the deliberate violation of the orders of this Court dated 13.02.2020 in W.A.No.1216 of 2016.

¶61

CONT P No. 732 to 734 of 2021

¶62

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Premkumar For Contemnor(s): Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 Mr.I.Calvin Jones for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R2 Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan, for Ms.H.Mary Sowmi Rexy for M/s.Isaac Chambers for R3

¶63

CONT P No. 1152 of 2021

¶64

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.M.Hariharan For Contemnor(s): Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan, for Ms.H.Mary Sowmi Rexy for M/s.Isaac Chambers for R3

¶65

***********

¶66

__________ Page No.4 of 8

¶67

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

¶68

CONT.P.Nos.732, 733, 734 & 1152 of 2021

¶69

O R D E R

¶70

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

¶71

The Contempt Petitions have been instituted to punish the respondents

¶72

for their wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 13.02.2020 in W.A.Nos.1216 to 1218 of 2016.

¶73

2. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the Writ Appeal order came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 14.02.2025.

¶74

3. The respective learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

¶75

the Writ Appeal orders have not been implemented by extending UGC scale of pay to the petitioners.

¶76

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the College Management would oppose by stating that the Division Bench of this Court directed the College Management to take a decision if the teaching staffs possess requisite qualification as per the UGC Regulations. In this regard the College Management has considered the educational qualifications possessed by the teaching staffs and passed an order, which was communicated on 21^st January 2022. A reading of the said proceedings would show that the petitioners / lecturers are receiving UGC scale of pay from the date of their appointment till May 2003. The petitioners have not secured the requisite

¶77

Page No.5 of 8

¶78

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

¶79

CONT.P.Nos.732, 733, 734 & 1152 of 2021

¶80

qualification of M.Phil., / Ph.d., Therefore, their pay were reduced as per the UGC Regulations. Accordingly, the College Management passed an order stating that the petitioners does not possess the requisite qualification as required under UGC Regulations and therefore, they are not eligible for UGC scale of pay under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS).

¶81

5. When the College Management has passed an order holding that the petitioners/ lecturers did not possess required educational qualifications, it is for the petitioners to defend the same in the manner known to law. The directions issued by the Division Bench is to take a decision, if the petitioners are otherwise qualified and possess requisite qualification as per the UGC Regulations.

¶82

6. This being the scope of the order, this Court do not find any wilful disobedience of the order of this Court warranting exercise of contempt jurisdiction. It is for the petitioners to workout their remedy in the manner known to law, if they are otherwise qualified under the UGC Regulations.

¶83

7. Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the contention of the College Management is erroneous, since in paragraph No.9 of the Division Bench order there is an observation that the lecturers are eligible for UGC scale of pay.

¶84

__________ Page No.6 of 8

¶85

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

¶86

CONT.P.Nos.732, 733, 734 & 1152 of 2021

¶87

8. However, it is for the petitioners to establish the same with reference

¶88

to the educational qualifications they possess, which must be in consonance with the UGC Regulations.

¶89

9. With these observations this Contempt Petition stands closed .