Madras High Court
R.Saravanakumar vs T.K.Rajendran on 2 August, 2021
Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017
& Rev. Application (MD) No.32 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017
and
Rev. Application (MD) No.32 of 2018
Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017:
R.Saravanakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. T.K.Rajendran,
Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004.
2. Aananthakumar Somani
Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range, Madurai.
3. M.Rajarajan
Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 praying to punish the Respondents for their willful disobedience of
the order dated 17.02.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3332 of 2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.Aathif,
Page No.1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017
& Rev. Application (MD) No.32 of 2018
for Mr.S.Selvakumar
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Senior Counsel
Review Application (MD) No.32 of 2018:
1. The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
2. The Deputy Inspector of Police,
Madurai Range, Madurai.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar. ... Petitioners
vs.
R.Saravanakumar ... Respondent
Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114
of C.P.C. against the order dated 17.02.2014 in W.P.(MD) No.3332 of 2011.
For Petitioners : Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Senior Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.Aathif,
for Mr.S.Selvakumar
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017
& Rev. Application (MD) No.32 of 2018
C O M M ON O R D E R
The above Contempt Petition is filed by the legal heir of the deceased
employee seeking to punish the Respondents for their wilful disobedience of
the order dated 17.02.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.3332 of
2011 and seeking to review the said order, the Department has filed the above
Review Application.
2. As the issue involved in the Contempt Petition and Review
Application is one and the same, both cases are taken up for disposal by a
common order.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review
Petitioners/Department stated that, the Contempt Petitioner's father viz.
R.Rajagopal had worked as a Special Sub Inspector of Police, Highway
Patrol 59 under the control of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar
District and he had met with an accident in the course of duty on 06.10.2004.
Then, after completion of five years of service, he opted for voluntary
retirement from service on domestic grounds vide Petition dated 04.02.2010
and he was permitted to go on voluntary retirement from service on
31.05.2010 A.N. He was paid terminal benefits and after voluntary
retirement from service, he expired on 14.09.2010. After his death, his wife
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017
& Rev. Application (MD) No.32 of 2018
viz. R.Pushpaleela is receiving family pension from 15.09.2010.
4. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the Review
Petitioners/Department, since correct facts have not been brought to the
notice of this Court, the Court proceeded that, G.O.Ms.No.168, Labour and
Employment Department, dated 19.10.2000 will be applicable to the
deceased employee and held that, the benefits of medical invalidation before
completion of 53 years of age have to be extended to the legal heirs of the
deceased employee. He further stated that, all the benefits due to the
deceased employee viz. R.Rajagopal have been paid to his legal heirs on
account of his death.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review
Petitioners/Department contended that, once an employee ceases to be an
employee of the Department, the question of extending the benefits of
Voluntary Retirement Scheme may not be applicable. Hence, the order
passed in the Writ Petition has to be reviewed. He further submitted that, as
the Review Petition has been filed, the order passed in the Writ Petition could
not be implemented and that, there is no wilful and deliberate disobedience
on the part of the Department.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent in the Review
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017
& Rev. Application (MD) No.32 of 2018
Petition submitted that, the deceased employee met with an accident on
06.10.2004, while in service, which fact was not brought to the notice of the
Department. However, after availing leave on medical grounds, the employee
reported for work on 31.08.2007 and thereafter, he was on periodical leave to
undergo treatment. He further submitted that, the Medical Board
recommended Medical Leave and issued Fitness Certificate to the deceased
Rajagopal, based on which, he joined duty. He went on to state that, the
request for Voluntary Retirement was made on 04.02.2010, due to family
circumstances. However, the Department is aware that, the deceased
employee submitted his Application for Voluntary Retirement on medical
grounds, believing that, compassionate appointment will be given to his son.
Learned counsel contended that, the Review Application filed by the
Department is not maintainable in view of the judgment dated 19.04.2017
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.1125 of 2014.
7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material documents available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that, the deceased employee viz. Rajagopal
met with an accident on 06.10.2004 while in service and that, he died on
14.09.2010, five months after being relieved from service on 31.05.2010. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017
& Rev. Application (MD) No.32 of 2018
is also not in dispute that, the Department granted medical leave to the
deceased employee, as he suffered for more than three years due to the
accident. After the death of the employee, his son filed a Writ Petition in
W.P.(MD) No.3332 of 2011, challenging the order dated 08.01.2011 passed
by the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, whereby his request
for compassionate appointment was rejected. This Court, by an order dated
17.02.2014 in the said Writ Petition, held that, the Petitioner therein, i.e. the
son of the deceased employee is entitled for compassionate appointment in
view of G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 19.10.2000.
9. G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 19.10.2000 states that, person who has
been medically invalidated should not have completed 53 years of age on the
date of such invalidation. In the case on hand, on the date of accident, the
deceased employee has not completed 51 years of age.
10. The order dated 17.02.2014 passed in W.P.(MD) No.3332 of
2011 has been confirmed in W.A.(MD) No.1125 of 2014 by the Division
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.04.2017. The judgment passed
in the said Writ Appeal was sought to be reviewed by the Department in
Review Application (MD) No.8 of 2018, wherein, the Division Bench
granted liberty to the Review Petitioners to plead before the Single Bench
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017
& Rev. Application (MD) No.32 of 2018
about the subsequent development which had taken place, culminating in the
Review Application.
11. Even assuming that, the order dated 17.02.2014 passed in W.P.
(MD) No.3332 of 2011 is erroneous, it cannot be reviewed, as, based on the
pleadings made by the learned counsel at that relevant point of time, orders
have been passed. Had the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Department been available at that relevant point of time,
this Court would have taken a different view that, his arguments appear to be
sound. However, the fact that, the employee met with an accident, suffered
due to the accident for nearly three years, which made him submit an
Application for Voluntary Retirement on personal grounds, has to be taken
note of.
12. Though I find force in the submissions of the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners/Department, without treating
this order as a precedent, as the employee met with an accident while in
service, and that, there are no adverse remarks against him, treating the case
of the deceased employee as a special one, the request of the Respondent in
the Review Petition may be considered in the light of G.O.Ms.No.168, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017
& Rev. Application (MD) No.32 of 2018
19.10.2010, as if, the deceased employee had left the services on medical
grounds.
13. This Court again emphasizes that, this order cannot be treated as
a precedent in other cases. Though the decision of the Division Bench with
regard to changing the view is starring at me, in the peculiar circumstances of
this case, this order is passed in the present Review Application.
14. The Government is expected to consider the request of the
Respondent in the Review Application, sympathetically and take a decision
and communicate it to him, preferably within a period of four months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. In view of the judgment dated 19.04.2017 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.1125 of 2014 confirming the
order dated 17.02.2014 passed in W.P.(MD) No.3332 of 2011, contempt
will not lie. Once the order passed in a Writ Petition gets merged with the
judgment rendered in the Writ Appeal, the remedy available to the Writ
Petitioner is to file a Contempt in the Writ Appeal and not in the Writ
Petition, unless and until, the Apex Court specifically directs the High Court
to decide the issue, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of
Kunhayammed & Others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2000 (6) SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017
& Rev. Application (MD) No.32 of 2018
359) and in the case of Dineshan, K.K. vs. R.K.Singh reported in (2014) 16
SCC 88.
16. I had an occasion to render a judgment pertaining to Doctrine of
Merger in Contempt Petition (MD) No.1097 of 2015 in the case of
Ponnuthai vs. V.M.Xavier Chrisso Nayagam, reported in 2017 (3) CTC
783, wherein, I had specifically held that, the limitation period shall
commence after the order of this Court and that, Section 20 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971, would be applicable on and from the date of the
decision. Subsequently, I had an occasion to consider the very same
provision viz. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with reference
to Article 215 of the Constitution of India in W.P.No.17831 of 2020 vide
order dated 21.06.2021, and held that, the powers of this Court under Article
215 of the Constitution of India are very wide and it cannot be curtailed by
Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
17. The Government should also think about exceptional cases,
wherein, even if the employee crosses 53 years of age, as a yardstick, fixing
the outer limit of 53 years cannot be narrowed down to reject the case, as in
many genuine cases, the family will be thrown to streets, as they may not be
able to have a square meal a day.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017
& Rev. Application (MD) No.32 of 2018
18. In fine, Review Application (MD) No.32 of 2018 is ordered
accordingly and Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017 is closed.
02.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
(aeb)
Note to Registry: Issue copy of this order on or before 08.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017
& Rev. Application (MD) No.32 of 2018
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
(aeb)
Common order in
Contempt Petition (MD) No.1148 of 2017
and
Rev. Application (MD) No.32 of 2018
02.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
