G.Kamala Vs Atulya Misra I.A.S — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

G.Kamala Vs Atulya Misra I.A.S — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

L.P.A.No.4 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

L.P.A.No.4 of 2020 and

C.M.P.No.4356 of 2020

G.Kamala W/o.P.Ganapathy, D.No.2-1-79, T.C.M. Colony, Kunjandiyur, Gonur Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

Appellant(s)

Vs

1.Atulya Misra I.A.S

The Principal Secretary to Government, Energy Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.Saikumar I.A.S

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai 2.

3.Er. Ravi The Chief Engineer (Personal), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO, No.800 Anna Salai, Chennai 2.

Page 1 of 6

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

L.P.A.No.4 of 2020

4.Er.M.Thirumal The Superintending Engineer/Civil, Mettur Thermal Power Project, Metturdam 406, Salem District.

Respondent(s)

Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 14.02.2020 passed in Cont.P.No.1022 of 2017 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant(s): Mr.M.R.Jothimanian For R1: Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate For R2 and R3: No appearance For R4: Mr.Venkatesh Prasad A.P. for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co.

ORDER

(made by P.Velmurugan J.)

Challenging the order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the learned Single

Judge of this Court in Cont.P.No.1022 of 2017, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

Page 2 of 6

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

L.P.A.No.4 of 2020

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the respondents have not followed the order dated 23.11.2016 passed in the writ petition in W.P.No.41078 of 2016, in which, one of the directions is to consider the representation of the appellant afresh in light of the similar orders passed in other writ petitions, but, the learned Single Judge overlooked the same and dismissed the contempt petition on the ground that that there was no positive direction in the order passed in writ petition. He would further submit that while allowing W.P.No.41078 of 2016, the learned Judge has set aside the order passed by the respondent and also made an observation to consider the claim of the appellant afresh on merits and in view of the earlier order passed in respect of the similarly placed persons and therefore, once the writ Court finds that the petitioner is entitled for the relief on par with the similarly placed persons and the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the contempt since the respondents have violated the order of the writ Court. Therefore, he would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal.

Page 3 of 6

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

L.P.A.No.4 of 2020

On perusal of the records, it is seen that the writ Court while passing the order in W.P.No.41078 of 2016, has set aside the rejection order passed by the respondents with a direction to the appellant to give fresh representation and further directed the respondents to consider the representation of the appellant afresh and dispose of the matter on merits and in accordance with law. Subsequently, the said representation was also rejected by the respondent. The appellant herein, instead of challenging the same, has filed Contempt Petition No.1022 of 2017. While dismissing the contempt petition, the learned Single Judge has observed that there was no positive direction given by this Court to provide employment and in fact, while considering the representation of the appellant, the same was also rejected by the authorities.

Since the aforesaid rejection order was not challenged by the appellant and also there was no positive direction in the order passed in the writ petition, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is liable to the dismissed.

Page 4 of 6

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

L.P.A.No.4 of 2020

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to work out his remedy in the manner known to law by challenging the subsequent rejection order passed by the respondents.

(P.V., J.)(M.J.R., J.) 02-01-2026

nsd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

Page 5 of 6

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

L.P.A.No.4 of 2020

P.VELMURUGAN J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN J.

nsd

L.P.A.No.4 of 2020

02.01.2026

Page 6 of 6

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