Madras High Court
V.K.S.Balu vs Mrs.S.Mathumathi on 24 July, 2025
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
In
W.P.(MD)No.15571 of 2013
V.K.S.Balu,
S/o.Sethuraman,
Kariayunampatti,
Pannaipuram Post,
Theni District. ...Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs
1.Mrs.S.Mathumathi, I.A.S.,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.Mr.T.Udhayachandran, I.A.S.,
The Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
3.Mr.S.Sethurama Varma,
The Director of Elementary Education,
Chennai – 600 006.
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
4.Mr.P.Johnson,
The District Elementary Education Officer,
Theni, Theni District. ...Contemnors/Respondents
PRAYER: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of
Courts Act, to punish the Contemnors/Respondents for willfully
disobeying and not complying with the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.15571 of 2013, dated 08.03.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai
For Respondents : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by,
Mr.D.Sadiq Raja,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard Mr.K.Appadurai, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by
Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader who accepts
notice on behalf of the Respondents. Therefore, no further notice is
required to be issued to the Respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
2. This Court vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed the following
order in the present Contempt Petition:
Heard Mr.K.Appadurai, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner and Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned
Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on
behalf of the Respondents. Therefore, no further notice
is required to be issued to the Respondents.
2. This Contempt Petition has been filed for non
compliance of the judgment and order dated
08.03.2017 passed in W.P.(MD)No.15571 of 2013 and
the learned Single Judge of the Writ Court allowed the
said Writ Petition in the following terms:
“18. All the above judgments passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court
were squarely applicable to the petitioner's
case in hand, therefore the petitioner is
entitled to the relief for sought for in this writ
petition.
19.In the result:
(a) the writ petition is allowed by setting
aside the order
passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.
18792/J1/2012 dated 26.04.2013;
(b) the respondents are hereby directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
grant pension to the petitioner as per
G.O.Ms.No.408 Finance (Pension) dated
25.08.2009 and the pay back the arrears of
pension and also pay the future pension
continuously;
(c) the respondents are hereby directed to
complete the above said exercise within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. However, considering
the circumstances of the case, there is no
order as to cost. Connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.”
3. Mr.K.Appadurai, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that against the judgment and order
dated 08.03.2017 in W.P.(MD)No.15571 of 2013, the
Respondents have preferred Writ Appeal bearing W.A.
(MD)No.68 of 2018 and the Division Bench of this
Court vide judgment and order dated 19.07.2024
dismissed the said Writ Appeal in the following terms:
“10. If G.O.408 is strictly construed, then the
writ-petitioner might not be entitled to claim
benefit under that G.O. The dictum in
Kaliyamurthy case strictly does not deal with
a situation such as the one now before this
court. Issue is whether the petitioner's part-
time employment from 18.09.1987 to
18.11.1998 be accommodated for the benefit
of G.O.408 is the issue. Here, it may have to
be stated that prior to his full time
appointment, the petitioner was employed as
a part time teacher in the same school. Now,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
the point is was the petitioner appointed as a
part-time teacher in a full time post? After
all it was a Panchayat Union Middle School,
and it is least likely that this school in 1987
would have had both a part-time post and
full-time post for its vocational course
(agriculture). There is no clarity on this
point. If the petitioner has been appointed as
a part-time teacher in a full time post, it
could be safely concluded it is a ploy to
outmanoeuvre the Pension Rules.
11.It is now 17 years since he
superannuated. And somewhere his anxiety
should end. Therefore, this Court deems it
appropriate to give the benefit of doubt to
the writ-petitioner/respondent herein and
treats his part-time service in vocational
(agriculture) course in the Panchayat Union
Middle School at Melasinthalaseri between
18.09.1987 to 18.11.1998 as an employment
in a full time post. If so considered, then
petitioner's case would be covered under
G.O.408, dated 25.08.2009.
12. It is clarified that this court has arrived
at the above decision on the peculiar facts of
this case and hence the result of this case
considered as declaring the law on the point.
13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
The order dated 08.03.2017 passed in
W.P(MD)No.15571 of 2013 is confirmed. No
cots. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.”
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the Petitioner has not yet been granted pension,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
despite the judgment and order passed by the Writ
Court long ago. He further submits that, in spite of the
judgment and order dated 08.03.2017 passed in W.P.
(MD) No.15571 of 2013 and the subsequent dismissal
of the writ appeal in W.A.(MD) No.68 of 2018 dated
19.07.2024, more than one year has elapsed, the
Respondents have failed to comply with the directions
issued by the Writ Court. The learned counsel submits
that the Respondents have wilfully and deliberately
flouted the orders of the Writ Court. Therefore, it is
submitted that the Respondents are in contempt of
court and may be summoned and punished for
committing contempt, by exercising the powers
conferred under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
5. Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional
Government Pleader requests this Court to grant time
to ensure compliance with the judgment and order
passed by the Writ Court dated 08.03.2017 in W.P.
(MD) No.15571 of 2013.
6. Upon perusing the judgment and order passed
by the Writ Court on 08.03.2017 in W.P.(MD) No.
15571 of 2013, as well as the judgment and order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
passed by the Appellate Court on 19.07.2024 in W.A.
(MD) No.68 of 2018, and upon considering the
averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the
contempt petition, this Court is of the view that the
Respondents appear to have wilfully and deliberately
disobeyed the order of the Writ Court. Though the
judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court in
W.A.(MD) No.68 of 2018 was dismissed on 19.07.2024,
and more than one year has since elapsed, the
Respondents have not taken any steps to comply with
the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court. Such
inaction on the part of the Respondents clearly
indicates a wilful disobedience and malafide intent,
reflecting a blatant disregard for the authority of this
Court. Government officers who fail to comply with
judicial orders not only undermine the dignity of the
Court but also show a serious contempt for the rule of
law. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to
initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondents
for their alleged non-compliance with the orders
passed by this Court.
7. Accordingly, Mr.S.Sethurama Varma, the
Director of Elementary Education Officer, Chennai –
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
600 006, is directed to appear in person before this
Court on 24.07.2025 along with the personal affidavit
and explain why the judgment and order passed by the
Writ Court dated 08.03.2017 passed in W.P.(MD)No.
15571 of 2013, has not been complied with, and why
this Court should not proceed with initiating contempt
proceedings against him.
8. Put up this case on 24.07.2025 “For Further
Orders” before this Court.
9. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr.D.Sadiq
Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader, for
necessary compliance and information to the
Respondents.
3. In compliance with the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by this
Court in the present Contempt Petition, Mr.R.Swaminathan, currently
serving as the Joint Director (Administration), Directorate of Elementary
Education, Chennai, is present in person before this Court today. He has
filed an affidavit and submitted that Mr.S.Sethuramavarma is not serving
as the Director of Elementary Education as of date. Mr.Naresh is the
current Director of Elementary Education, however, he could not appear in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
person due to a function organized by him today at around 11:00 a.m. at
Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Chennai, where appointment orders were to be
issued to Secondary Grade Teachers in the presence of the Deputy Chief
Minister and the Minister concerned. Therefore, his personal appearance
may be dispensed with for the present. This fact is stated in paragraph no.
8 of the affidavit.
4. A copy of the affidavit filed by Mr.R.Swaminathan, Joint Director
(Administration), Directorate of Elementary Education, Chennai, is taken
on record and furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Upon
perusal of the said affidavit, this Court is of the view that the reason stated
by Mr.R.Swaminathan appears to be justified, and accordingly, the
Director of Elementary Education is exempted from appearing before this
Court.
5. Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted
by Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader for the
Respondents, submits that in compliance with the order dated 23.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
passed by this Court in the present contempt petition, an affidavit has been
filed by Mr.R.Swaminathan, Joint Director (Administration), Directorate
of Elementary Education, Chennai. In paragraph No. 7 of the said affidavit,
it has been categorically stated that, since the Review Application is
pending as on date, the Respondents seek four weeks time either to comply
with the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court or to obtain a stay in
the Review Application. The said statement made in paragraph No. 7 of the
affidavit is reproduced hereunder:
“7. I respectfully submitted that half of the service
rendered in part time service cannot be counter for the
purpose of pensionary benefits is a settled law. Hence,
review application has been preferred and the same
has been numbered as C.M.P.(MD)No.10851 of 2025
in Review (MD)Sr.No.49977 of 2025 on the file of this
Hon'ble Court. The review is still pending as on date.
I seek indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to grant four
weeks time either to comply the order or to get stay in
the review application. The four weeks time is sought
for as administrative sanction as well as financial
sanction are to be obtained from different departments
before issuing government order.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
6. Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned Additional Advocate General for the
Respondents, submits that in light of the affidavit filed by
Mr.R.Swaminathan, Joint Director (Administration), Directorate of
Elementary Education, Chennai, who is present in person before this Court
today in place of the Director of Elementary Education, he assures this
Court that the judgment and order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Writ
Court in W.P.(MD)No.15571 of 2013 will be complied with within a
period of four weeks. He further assures that the arrears of pension, along
with the corresponding monetary and service benefits, will be disbursed to
the Petitioner within the same period, and that the pension will be paid
regularly in future. Therefore, he prays that the Respondents may be
discharged from the contempt proceedings and that the present contempt
petition may be disposed of accordingly.
7. Mr.K.Appadurai, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
submits that he has received a copy of the affidavit filed by
Mr.R.Swaminathan, Joint Director (Administration), Directorate of
Elementary Education, Chennai, and further submits that he has no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
objection to the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate
General as well as to the averments made in paragraph No.7 of the
affidavit. Accordingly, the learned counsel states that he has no objection
to the Respondents being discharged from the contempt proceedings at this
stage, and that the present contempt petition may be disposed of
accordingly.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of the affidavit filed by Mr.R.Swaminathan, Joint
Director (Administration), Directorate of Elementary Education, Chennai,
particularly paragraph No.7, this Court is satisfied that the Respondents
shall comply with the judgment and order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the
Writ Court in W.P.(MD) No. 15571 of 2013 within a period of four weeks
from today, without fail. As per the averments made in the said affidavit
and the assurance given by the learned Additional Advocate General, this
Court hopes and trusts that the judgment and order of the Writ Court will
be duly complied with within the stipulated period. It is further assured
that the arrears of pension, along with the corresponding monetary and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
service benefits, will be disbursed to the Petitioner within the same period,
and that the pension will be paid regularly in future. In view of the same,
this Court deems it appropriate to drop the contempt proceedings against
the Respondents. Accordingly, the Respondents are discharged from the
contempt proceedings at this stage.
9. In view of the above, the Contempt Petition is disposed of at this
stage. The file shall be consigned to record. There shall be no order as to
costs.
24.07.2025
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
Nsr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
To:
1.The Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Director of Elementary Education,
Chennai – 600 006.
4.Mr.P.Johnson,
The District Elementary Education Officer,
Theni, Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Nsr
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1988 of 2025
24.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
