Madras High Court
Pradeep Yadav vs P.Gnana Pragasam .. 1St on 18 July, 2023
Cont.A.(MD).No.5 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Cont.A.(MD).No.5 of 2023
in
Cont.P.(MD).No.374 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.8330 of 2023
1.Pradeep Yadav
The Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.Muthupalanichamy,
The Director of Teacher Education Research
and Training,
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.Boobala Anto,
The Principal District Institute of
Education and Training,
Munanjipatti,
Tirunelveli District. .. Appellants/ Respondents 1 to 3
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.A.(MD).No.5 of 2023
Vs.
1.P.Gnana Pragasam .. 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.Ponnu,
The Correspondent,
Ooliyasthanam,
Teacher Training Institute,
Palayapettai,
Tirunelveli District. .. 2nd Respondent/4th Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act
to allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 20.10.2021 passed in
Cont.P.(MD).No.374 of 2020.
For Appellants : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.D.Sadiq Raja
Additional Government Pleader
For R-1 : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For R-2 : No appearance
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.A.(MD).No.5 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH,J.)
This Contempt Appeal is filed against an interim observation made by
the learned Single Judge of this Court in Cont.P.(MD).No.374 of 2020 dated
20.10.2021. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
“2.Denying monetary benefit at least from 2000 is not
warranted. The learned Government Advocate appearing for
the respondents, however, submitted that an opportunity may be
given to correct the mistake.
3.Therefore, post this matter next week for filing fresh
affidavit and passing an order in tune with the direction of this
Court in its letter and spirit.”
2. We do not find any positive directions in the aforesaid order so as
to give a cause of action for the Government to prefer an appeal. As a
matter of fact, in the order impugned, the learned Single Judge had only
given an opportunity to the Government to file an affidavit on the status,
which was at their request. In the absence of any such positive directions,
the present Contempt Appeal does not deserve consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.A.(MD).No.5 of 2023
3. The learned Additional Advocate General made an earnest effort to
state that the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.10915 of
2007 dated 03.12.2012, was complied by them in its letter and spirit through
G.O.(1D) No.52 School Education (ERT) Department, dated 19.03.2021
and the writ petitioner's entitlement to receive the monetary benefits, on the
date of his retirement from 30.06.2006, was already disbursed and therefore,
there is no justification on the part of the writ petitioner to claim the
monetary benefits from 2000 onwards.
4. The learned Single Judge in the order passed in W.P.(MD).
No.10915 of 2007 dated 03.12.2012 had allowed the Writ Petition and
directed the respondents to regularise the service of the writ petitioner with
effect from 01.04.1979 on par with the similarly placed persons and extend
all the monetary benefits by passing suitable orders. Since those similarly
placed persons were given monetary benefits only from the date of the
Government Order, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit
that the writ petitioner is not entitled for such benefits from 2000, but only
from the date of his retirement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.A.(MD).No.5 of 2023
5. The order of the writ Court came to be challenged by the
Government in W.A.(MD).No.1147 of 2013, which was dismissed on
05.08.2019. The Government had, thereafter, chosen not to challenge the
order of dismissal further and thus, the order of the learned Single Judge has
become final. If at all the Government needed any further clarification after
the Contempt Petition was filed by the concerned employee, seeking for
benefits from May 2000, the option that would be available to the
Government is to seek for clarification from the learned Single Judge or to
file a counter affidavit in the Contempt Petition explaining the position. In
the Contempt Petition also, no final findings have been given except for an
observation that the denial of monetary benefits at least from 2000 is not
warranted. Even after such an observation is made, the learned Single
Judge had given an opportunity to the Government to file an affidavit
possibly to explain the entitlement of the employee. Instead of filing such
an affidavit in the Contempt Petition, trying to canvass the position before
us in the Contempt Appeal is not warranted or justifiable. In the absence of
any positive directions in the Contempt Petition, we do not find any
necessity to interfere with the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.A.(MD).No.5 of 2023
6. Accordingly, the Contempt Appeal stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
(M.S.R.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.)
18.07.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Lm
To
1.The Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Teacher Education Research
and Training,
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Principal District Institute of
Education and Training,
Munanjipatti,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.A.(MD).No.5 of 2023
M.S.RAMESH,J.
and
M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
Lm
Cont.A.(MD).No.5 of 2023
18.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
