Madras High Court
R.Paul Murugan vs S.Emperumal on 28 April, 2022
Cont.P.(MD) No.115 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Orders Reserved On Orders Pronounced On
22.04.2022 28.04.2022
Cont.P.(MD) No.115 of 2021
R.Paul Murugan .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.S.Emperumal
The District Educational Officer,
Vallioor, Tirunelveli District.
2.K.Srinivasan
The Block Educational Officer-II,
Vallioor, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Petition under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the
respondent for willful disobedience of order passed by this Court in W.P.
(MD) No.7472 of 2020 dated 27.07.2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar
For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh
Additional Government Pleader
___________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.115 of 2021
ORDER
This Contempt Petition is filed to punish the respondents for their
willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.
7472 of 2020 dated 27.07.2020.
2. This Court, after adjudication, passed final orders in the writ
petition on 27.07.2020 and the operative portion of the judgment reads as
under:-
“13.Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside
and the matter is remitted back to the respondents for
reconsideration. By making such reconsideration, the
respondents shall borne in mind that from the date of
appointment till the date the petitioner reached the
position of Primary School Headmaster, the petitioner is
ahead of the individual one Kanagaraj. However, the
latter is getting higher pay than the petitioner. It should
be considered and rectified by removing the disparity of
pay between these two. Necessary order to that effect
shall be passed by the respondents within a period of
eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.115 of 2021
14.With the above direction, this Writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.”
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
contended that the order of this Court passed in the writ petition has not
been implemented properly. Though the 1st respondent has passed an order
in proceedings dated 30.09.2020, pursuant to the orders passed in W.P(MD)
No.7472 of 2020, the said order is not as per the directions issued by this
Court in the writ petition. Thus, the respondents have committed contempt
of Court.
4. It is contended that the manner in which this Court directed the
respondents to decide the matter has not been implemented by the
respondents. Contrarily, the respondents have rejected the claim of the writ
petitioner by stating that each union is a separate unit and therefore, the
Teachers who all are appointed and working in the same union alone are
eligible to claim stepping up of pay on par with the junior and therefore, the
claim of the writ petitioner cannot be stepped up on par with his junior.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.115 of 2021
5. The order passed by the 1st respondent dated 30.09.2020 reveals
that as per the orders of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.7472 of 2020, proposals
were sought for and re-considered by the authorities pursuant to the remand
order passed. The respondents found that the petitioner, who is senior in
service, was appointed in another Union as Secondary Grade Teacher and
thereafter, by way of transfer, he was posted at Vallioor Union as Secondary
Grade Teacher. Similarly the junior in service Thiru.Kanagaraj was also
appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in some other union and thereafter,
transferred to Vallioor Union and joined as Secondary Grade Teacher. In
view of the fact that both the senior and the junior were appointed in
another union and thereafter, transferred to Valliyoor Union as per the
orders of the Head of the Department and the Government, stepping up of
pay cannot be granted.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner attacking the said
observations in the order dated 30.09.2020, drew the attention of this Court
with reference to Para 11 and 12 of the orders passed in W.P.(MD) No.7472
of 2020. Relying on the observations, the learned counsel for the petitioner
reiterated that the observations are in favour of the petitioner and even in
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.115 of 2021
such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for stepping up of pay and
therefore, the orders passed by this Court have been violated.
7. No doubt, throughout the order, this Court has made several
observations including the orders passed in other writ petitions also. No
doubt, all are observations and finally, the Court passed an order remitting
the matter back to the respondents for re-consideration. Further, the Court
has said that the authorities should keep in mind that the petitioner is ahead
of the individual one Kanagaraj and that the said Kanagaraj is getting higher
pay than the petitioner. However, it is stated finally that necessary orders to
be passed by the respondents.
8. Question arises in a case where the Court remitted/remanded the
matter back for re-consideration to the authorities, whether the observations
made would attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act or not.
9. This Court is of the considered opinion that orders of the Court are
to be implemented in its letter and spirit by the executives. However,
certain observations made by the Courts undoubtedly are to be taken into
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.115 of 2021
consideration, if the matters are remanded back for fresh consideration by
the competent authorities, but such observations cannot be construed as a
positive direction for the purpose of strict implementation, as the
observations are to be taken as guiding factors and cannot be conclusive, as
the Courts have not adjudicated such issues on merits with reference to the
documents and evidences and given a clear finding. Therefore, the
observations are distinguishable from the orders issued by the Courts.
Orders are to be implemented scrupulously. In the present case, the order
passed by the Court is remanding the matter back to the authorities for fresh
consideration. Thus, it is to be considered whether the authorities have
reconsidered the issues and passed an order or not. To that extent alone, the
contempt proceedings can be dealt with. Consideration cannot travel further
so as to consider the observations as mandatory for the purpose of initiation
of contempt against the executives.
10. The very purpose and object of remanding/remitting the matters
back to the competent authorities provides scope for such authorities for
fresh adjudication of the issues on merits and in accordance with law.
When the authorities are conferred with the power of re-adjudication by way
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.115 of 2021
of remand, then there cannot be any restriction for such re-adjudication, as
such adjudications are expected to be done with reference to the documents
and evidences as well as the grounds raised between the parties. Therefore,
the observations made while remanding the matter are to be considered as
guiding factors and cannot be construed as mandatory directions. The
mandatory direction is issued on remand for fresh consideration. Thus, it is
sufficient if an order is passed by considering the issues afresh. The Court
cannot test the validity of such orders passed by the competent authorities.
The validity is to be tested separately by way of a fresh litigation. While re-
adjudicating the issues pursuant to the remand order passed by the High
Court, the authorities may form a different opinion based on certain
documents or evidences. Even if the same order has been passed without
any application of mind, then also, contempt cannot be a way out, as non-
application or incorrect adjudication cannot be a ground for initiation of
contempt proceedings. The scope of contempt proceedings is to be limited
only to the implementation of the orders passed by this Court and it cannot
be extended for the purpose of re-adjudication of issues with reference to
the observations made by the Courts.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.115 of 2021
11. To invoke the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, wilful
disobedience regarding the implementation of the orders must be
established. If any positive directions/orders are passed by the Courts, then
the authorities are bound to implement the same in its letter and spirit. In
those circumstances, non-implementation would attract the provisions of
Contempt of Courts Act. However, in a case where the Courts have
remanded the matter back to the authorities for fresh consideration, then
such authorities are empowered to consider the issue as a whole afresh and
even in case, the authorities have committed some error or repetition or
otherwise while reconsidering the issues, the same would not attract the
provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, but may provide a fresh cause for
filing a writ petition. Thus, the litigants cannot file contempt proceedings
for the purpose of implementing certain observations made in the orders by
the Courts. Those observations are made by the Courts mostly based on the
averments made in the affidavit or based on the arguments advanced by the
respective learned counsels. When the Court thought fit to remand the
matter for fresh adjudication with reference to the documents and evidences,
the authorities are empowered to adjudicate all issues on merits and in
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.115 of 2021
accordance with law and even in case of erroneous order is passed, the same
would not attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
12. For the reasons stated in the aforementioned paragraphs, this
Court has no hesitation in forming an opinion that the petitioner has not
established any wilful disobedience of the order of remand passed by this
Court and accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed.
28.04.2022
Internet: Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
abr
To
1.Mr.S.Emperumal
The District Educational Officer,
Vallioor, Tirunelveli District.
2.Mr.K.Srinivasan
The Block Educational Officer-II,
Vallioor, Tirunelveli District.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.115 of 2021
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
(abr)
Pre-delivery Order made in
Cont.P.(MD) No.115 of 2021
28.04.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
