Madras High Court
Marudhairaj vs Sankaranarayanan on 7 April, 2025
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
Cont.P.(MD) No.468 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
Cont.P.(MD) No.468 of 2025
in
W.P.(MD) No.10732 of 2024
Marudhairaj .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Sankaranarayanan
District Educational Officer,
Office of the District Education Officer,
Tiruchirappalli,
Old Collector's Office,
Tiruchirappalli 620 001.
2.S.Jesudass,
Manager and Correspondent,
Annai Indira Gandhi Memorial Higher Secondary School,
Muthukula,
N.Kutttapattu (PO),
Ramji Nagar,
Tiruchirappalli 620 009. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to
hold the contemnors in contempt for willful disobedience of the order of
this Court in W.P.(MD) No.10732 of 2024 dated 30.04.2024.
_________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 04:54:10 pm )
Cont.P.(MD) No.468 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesh
For R1 : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
For R2 : Mr.Jameel Arasu
ORDER
This contempt case is filed complaining the wilful disobedience of
the order dated 30.04.2024 in W.P.(MD) No.10732 of 2024.
2.While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court directed the
third respondent therein to mandate the fourth respondent to forward the
proposal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of that order and then, the third respondent shall pass appropriate orders
allowing the petitioner to retire from service within a period of four
weeks therefrom.
3.The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the
order of the Court is served on them on 06.06.2024 and immediately,
they sought proposal from the second respondent. But, it is not submitted
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 04:54:10 pm )
saying that against the single Judge order, the second respondent filed a
Writ Appeal and it is pending. Due to that reason, the proposal is not sent
to the first respondent. In view of the same, the first respondent could not
implement the order of the Court, as directed by this Court within the
stipulated time.
4.When this Court asked, the learned counsel for the second
respondent submits that the Writ Appeal filed by the School Management
in W.A.(MD) No.1162 of 2024 against the single Judge order was
dismissed by its judgment dated 16.07.2024.
5.The learned counsel for the first respondent further submits that
even after the dismissal of the writ appeal, the proposal was not
forwarded by the School to the District Educational Officer. Only after
issuing statutory notice to the respondents, the District Educational
Officer, the first respondent herein, passed orders for direct payment on
20.03.2025 and thereafter, received the proposal from the School on
21.03.2025 and the same was forwarded to the Accountant General on
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 04:54:10 pm )
22.03.2025 and the petitioner is allowed to retire from service as directed
by this Court.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner also accepted that the
petitioner is allowed to retire from service.
7.On careful perusal of the facts of the case, it appears that the
second respondent is responsible for the delay in implementing the order
of the Court. Though the first respondent is asking him to send the
proposal from 06.06.2024 onwards till 20.03.2025, he did not send the
proposal to the first respondent. It appears that even on 20.03.2025 also,
he sent the proposal due to the reason that already the first respondent
passed an order for direct payment.
8.Considering all these aspects, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the second respondent has committed wilful disobedience of the
order passed by this Court. Accordingly, he is liable for punishment
under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 04:54:10 pm )
9.When this Court proposed to impose punishment against the
second respondent, the learned counsel for the second respondent
requested to consider the health condition of the second respondent and
requested to impose cost instead of imposing punishment.
10.In view of the above factual position, as there is no delay on the
part of the first respondent in complying with the order of this Court, this
Contempt Case is closed against the first respondent.
11.Considering the request of the learned counsel for the second
respondent, this Contempt Case is closed against the second respondent
on condition of payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to
the Women Advocates Association, Madurai Bench of Madras High
Court, Madurai, within one week from today.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 04:54:10 pm )
12.The second respondent shall file a memo of payment of cost
before the Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
within one week.
07.04.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
mm
To
1.District Educational Officer,
Office of the District Education Officer,
Tiruchirappalli,
Old Collector's Office,
Tiruchirappalli 620 001.
2.Manager and Correspondent,
Annai Indira Gandhi Memorial Higher Secondary School,
Muthukula,
N.Kutttapattu (PO),
Ramji Nagar,
Tiruchirappalli 620 009.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 04:54:10 pm )
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
mm
Dated : 07.04.2025
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 04:54:10 pm )
