Madras High Court
K.Senthilkumar vs P.Kumar Singh on 31 October, 2023
Cont.P.(MD) No.1885 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 31.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Cont.P.(MD) No.1885 of 2023
in
W.A.(MD) No.540 of 2023
K.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.P.Kumar Singh
Commissioner
Kayalpattinam Municipality
Kayalpattinam
Tuticorin District
2.Dr.D.Karthikeyan, I.A.S.,
Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department
Fort St.George
Chennai-9
3.S.Sivarasu, I.A.S.,
Managing Director-cum-
Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Ezhilagam, Chepauk
Chennai-600 005
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.1885 of 2023
4.Vijayalakshmi
Regional Director
Municipal Administration Department
Thiruvananthapuram Road
Palayamkottai
Tirunelveli-2 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondents for the willful
disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.A.(MD) No.540 of 2023,
dated 06.06.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthikeyan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar for R1
Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader for R2 to R4
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience
of the Judgment, dated 06.06.2023, made in W.A.(MD) No.540 of 2023.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.1885 of 2023
2. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 2 to 4 furnished a copy of the letter dated 30.10.2023, sent by
the Commissioner, Kayalpattinam Municipality to the Special Government
Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, stating that the contempt
petitioner has been appointed as Work Inspector with effect from 13.09.2023
and he is working as such, as of now, and salary for the period from the
month of September 2022 to November 2022, during which the petitioner was
working in Kayalpattinam Municipality, was calculated and disbursed to the
contempt petitioner. Thus, the Judgment passed by this Court has been
complied with.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the contempt petitioner disputed
the above submission of the learned Special Government Pleader by stating
that the Judgment of this Court has not been complied with in its letter and
spirit and therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished.
4. We have carefully gone through the order, dated 12.04.2022,
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.58 of 2016, wherein a
direction was issued to the Secretary to Government, Municipal
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.1885 of 2023
Administration and Water Supply Department to consider the
recommendation proceedings of the Regional Director, Municipal
Administration Department, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-2 and the
Commissioner, Kayalpattinam Municipality, Tuticorin District, in the light of
Government Order and grant regularization of service to the contempt
petitioner. The said order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the
Division Bench of this Court by order dated 06.06.2023 in W.A.(MD) No.540 of
2023. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the special leave petition
filed by the respondents before the Apex Court was dismissed. Thus,
petitioner has chosen to move the present contempt proceedings.
5. The direction in the writ petition was to the Secretary to
Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, to
consider the recommendation proceedings of the Regional Director, Municipal
Administration Department, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-2 and the
Commissioner, Kayalpattinam Municipality, Tuticorin District, in the light of
Government Order and grant regularization of service to the contempt
petitioner. But, there is no direction to grant regularization of service with
retrospective effect or otherwise. Now, the contempt petitioner has been
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.1885 of 2023
appointed as Work Inspector and he is working as such as of now, more so
salary for the period from the month of September 2022 to November 2022,
during which the petitioner was working in Kayalpattinam Municipality, was
also calculated and disbursed to the contempt petitioner. Thus, the petitioner
has not established any willful disobedience of the Judgment passed by this
Court and therefore, the contempt petition is liable to be closed.
6. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
31.10.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.Dr.D.Karthikeyan, I.A.S.,
Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.1885 of 2023
2.Mr.S.Sivarasu, I.A.S.,
Managing Director-cum-
Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
3.Ms.Vijayalakshmi,
Regional Director,
Municipal Administration Department,
Thiruvananthapuram Road,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli-2.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.1885 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
krk
Cont.P.(MD) No.1885 of 2023
in
W.A.(MD) No.540 of 2023
31.10.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
