Madras High Court
M.Ponnamaal vs Mohan on 5 March, 2025
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Cont.P(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
in
W.P.(MD)Nos.23079, 23257 and 23532 of 2023
Cont.P.(MD)No.424 of 2024:-
M.Ponnamaal ... Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.
Mohan,
The District Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Contemnor/Respondent
PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court
Act, 1971, to punish the Contemnor/1st respondents for his willful, deliberate,
disobedience of the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.23079 of 2023
dated 21.09.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran
For Respondent : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
1/36
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
Cont.P.(MD)No.1765 of 2024:-
P.Sridevi ... Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.
Bala Dhandayuthapani,
The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Contemnor/Respondent
PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court
Act, 1971, to punish the Contemnor/1st respondents for his willful, deliberate,
disobedience of the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.23257 of 2023
dated 22.09.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran
For Respondent : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate
Cont.P.(MD)No.1813 of 2024:-
R.Selvakili ... Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.
Bala Dhandayuthapani,
The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Contemnor/Respondent
PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court
Act, 1971, to punish the Contemnor/1st respondents for his willful, deliberate,
disobedience of the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.23532 of 2023
dated 26.09.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
2/36
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran
For Respondent : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
These Contempt Petitions have been filed complaining the wilful
disobedience of the orders, in W.P(MD)Nos.23079, 23257 and 23532 of 2023,
dated 21.09.2023, 22.09.2023 and 26.09.2023 respectively, by the respondents.
2.Since issue in all these cases are one and the same, Cont.P.(MD)No.
424 of 2024 is taken on lead as reference.
3.This Court passed an order in W.P.(MD)No.23079 of 2023 dated
21.09.2023, directing the respondent to consider the representations of the
petitioner dated 19.05.2022, 12.09.2023, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.111, School
Education Department, dated 09.05.2012, within a period of 12 weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of the aforesaid order. The claim of the petitioner was to
direct the respondent to regularize the petitioner's service as full time Sweeper
on the date of completion of 10 years of part time service from 16.08.1980 and
to pay time scale pay and other benefits payable with effect from 16.08.1990 by
counting the 50% of part time service for the purpose of pension, in the light of
the order passed in W.A.(MD)No.93 of 2018 dated 27.03.2018, as confirmed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal of S.L.P.No.23960 of 2018 and in
the light of the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.111, School Education (R1)
Department, dated 09.05.2012. The petitioner was appointed as part time
Sweeper in the Government Middle School, Vellamadam, by appointment
order dated 16.08.1980 and she was a candidate sponsored through the
employment exchange. Though the nomenclature of the said post is part time
Sweeper, the nature of the vocation was one of full time employee. The
Government passed G.O.Ms.No.22 to regularize the service of daily wage
employees, of all Government Departments, who acquired 10 years of service
as on 01.01.2006. Since the petitioner had rendered service for more than 30
years, she made representations on 19.05.2022 and 12.09.2023, for
regularization of service based on G.O.Ms.No.22. In the meanwhile, the
Government has identified 614 part-time Sweepers and issued Government
order in G.O.Ms.111 dated 09.05.2012, to regularize the service of 614 part-
time Sweepers, including the petitioner.
4.Despite the said Government Order, the service of the petitioner is not
regularized, hence, the Writ Petition was filed. The Writ Petition was allowed,
directing the respondents therein to consider the representations of the
petitioner dated 19.05.2022 and 12.09.2023 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.111
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
School Education Department, dated 09.05.2012. Seeking to comply the said
order, a contempt notice was issued on 24.01.2024 by the petitioner and even
after receiving the same, the order of the Court was not complied. Hence, the
Contempt Petition was filed before this Court on 22.02.2024.
5.When the Contempt Petition was taken up for admission, the learned
Government Advocate placed before me the rejection order passed by the.
respondents, by Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5951/A1/2023, dated 29.12.2023.
6.On receipt of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently submitted that when the specific order of this Court was to consider
the petitioner's representations in the light of G.O.Ms.No.111, School
Education Department dated 09.05.2012, the same has not been considered at
all. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.3770 of 2017, dated 07.03.2017 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Special Leave Petition Nos.2726 and 2729 of 2014 dated 21.02.2014,
the said rejection order has been passed. When the specific direction of this
Court is to consider the petitioner's representation, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.
111, dated 09.05.2012, the same has not been complied with in letter and spirit
by the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
7.The learned Government Advocate vehemently submitted that the
claim of the petitioner was that the petitioner's name was one among the 614
part-time Sweepers enlisted in G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 09.05.2012. Since the
petitioner's name is not found in that particular list, the respondent/contemnor
was not in a position to pass a positive order regularizing the service of the writ
petitioner.
8.For which, this Court directed the respondent to produce G.O.Ms.No.
111 along with the complete list of 614 beneficiaries of the said G.O. The
learned Government Advocate on 24.04.2024 placed before me the list of 617
members, who are the beneficiaries of G.O.Ms.No.111, School Education
Department dated 09.05.2012. A careful perusal of the list of beneficiaries of
G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 09.05.2012, as produced by the learned Government
Advocate are from the following 19 districts: (i)Vellore, (ii)Erode,
(iii)Coimbatore, (iv)Cuddalore, (v)Trichy, (vi)Dharmapuri, (vii)Virudhunagar,
(viii)Perambalur, (ix) Villupuram, (x)Kanchipuram, (xi)Ramanathapuram,
(xii)Salem, (xiii)Thiruvallur, (xiv)Krishnagiri, (xv)Thanjavur,
(xvi)Thiruvannamalai, (xvii)Pudukottai, (xviii)Sivagangai, (xix)Nilgiri. The
said list along with covering letter dated Nil, signed on 15.04.2024, is
extracted as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
9.A careful perusal of the same would reveal that none of the
beneficiaries were from the district of Kanyakumari district. The petitioner is a
Sweeper, who served at the Government School, in Kanyakumari District. The
learned counsel for the petitioner filed an additional typed set of papers on
31.07.2024, wherein it is revealed that the District Educational Officer,
Thuckalay, by his proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.2001/A1/2012 dated 06.06.2012,
had regularized the service of eight night Watchmen and one Sweeper, who
served in various Government schools in Kanyakumari District by the aforesaid
proceedings in the light of G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 09.05.2012. He further placed
before me in that said typed set of papers, G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 18.04.2013, by
which a total number of 37 persons came to be regularized, in the light of
G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 09.05.2012 and many of them were from Kanyakumari
district. Further learned counsel for the petitioner placed before me, one RTI
question and the reply received from the Public Information Officer in a
response to the Right to information Act, query, made by one Rajesh Kumar
from Kanyakumari district, based on the information/list submitted before this
Court by the learned Government Advocate, claiming to be the annexure of
beneficiaries of G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 09.05.2012 and the same are extracted
as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
10.For the question of Thiru.Rajesh Kumar, seeking to furnish list of
beneficiaries under G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 09.05.2012, for the district of
Thiruvallur, the reply dated 12.06.2024, was as extracted above, which would
mean that, none of the employees in the district of Thiruvallur has been
regularised in terms of G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 09.05.2012. The same is the case
of the districts of Perambalor, Erode, Cuddalore, Villupuram, Krishnagiri,
Thanjavur and Thiruvannamalai. For another RTI query of one Thiru.Rajesh
Kumar dated 11.04.2024, requiring the list in the annexure to G.O.Ms.No.111,
dated 09.05.2012, of beneficiaries the reply dated Nil, signed on 14.06.2024,
from the Public Information Officer is as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
11.The extracted information above would precisely inform that, due to
passage of a period of 10 years, the entire file with respect to G.O.Ms.No.111,
is still maintained in records section and on identification of the same, the same
would be furnished. However, when this Court directed the learned
Government Advocate to produce the said list, the list produced on 24.04.2024,
was claimed to have been the 617 beneficiaries in the annexure to G.O.Ms.No.
111, dated 09.05.2012. I am of the considered view that the details of the Writ
Petition Numbers, in the aforesaid list would reveal that, the said persons were
the beneficiaries of W.P.Nos.29410, 29412, 29421, 29619, 29516 of 2010,
29626 of 2019, 29808, 29419, 29422, 29615, 29810, 29420, 29411, 29617,
29809, 27607 of 2010 and none of them were from the district of Kanyakumari.
The respondents having produced a list on 24.04.2024, before this Court, in
response to the application under Right to Information Act dated 11.04.2024,
the information given by the Public Information Officer cum Deputy Director
on 14.06.2024, is that the said file pertaining to the list of beneficiaries in the
annexure to G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 09.05.2012, is not traceable, despite being
maintained in the records section.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
12.Hence, I find a cloud in the details submitted by the learned
Government Advocate on 24.04.2024, that the respondents have wantonly
refrained themselves from producing the list of beneficiaries from the district of
Kanyakumari, when the petitioner is able to produce before me the list of
various other beneficiaries from the district of Kanyakumari. I find
malafideness on the part of the respondents/contemnors for having refused to
produce the list of beneficiaries of Kanyakumari district before me only for the
purpose of defeating the petitioner's right of getting regularized in the light of
G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 09.05.2025.
13.I have no hesitation to observe that, the respondents/contemnors have
disobeyed the order of this Court wantonly. While considering the orders
passed by this Court, the respondents/contemnors should have considered the
same in letter and spirit. When the order of this Court is to consider the
representations of the petitioners, who had served as a Sweeper in Government
school for more than 10 years, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 09.05.2012,
the same ought to have been considered in the light of G.O.Ms.No.111, dated
09.05.2012. Instead the respondents/contemnors have proceeded to consider the
petitioners' representation hyper-technically on the basis of two Hon'ble
Supreme Court judgment, which are not relevant to this case, fully negating the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
mandates of G.O.Ms.No.111 dated 09.05.2012, when thousands of basic
service servants were regularized in the light of G.O.Ms.No.111 dated
09.05.2012. The attitude of the respondents/contemnors, for having refused to
regularize the petitioners service in the light of G.O.Ms.No.111 dated
09.05.2012 and passing an order of rejection hyper-technically, has compelled
this Court to take a stringent action on the respondents/condemnors. This State
consistently boasting of being a welfare State, that too, in the instant lis, which
is a basic service employee, who served as a Sweeper, whose employment is
categorized in serial No.32 as a basic service under the Special Rules for Tamil
Nadu Basic Service.
14.When the matter of regularization of basic servant has already been
settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Court of this Court that the services
of basic servants should be regularised in case of completion of 10 years of
service, irrespective of their status being a permanent part time or full time
servants in M.Sivappa versus the State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in
2024 (2) CTC 1, the attitude of the respondents/contemnors hyper-technically,
rejecting the petitioners' representations, relying upon the two Hon'ble Apex
Court judgments, which was passed as early as during 2014 and 2017, much
before the pronouncement of the judgment in Sivappa case in 26.02.2024, is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
unwarranted. Instead the respondents/contemnors ought to have considered the
latest judgment of Sivappa's case in considering the plight of the helpless
Sweeper, who served the ends of a Government school, taking care of the
sanitation needs of poor students, who are studying in Government schools.
The vocation of a Sweeper is as important as that of the vocation of the Chief
Secretary of the Government, State of Tamil Nadu. When the vocation of a
Sweeper in a Government school is about sweeping the dirt in the school, the
vocation of the Chief Secretary is sweeping the dirt in the administrative system
of the State. Hence, I find it necessary to take stringent action against the
respondents/contemnors. Therefore, this Court finds that the
respondents/contemnors committed contempt of Court and hence, this Court is
inclined to impose punishment.
15.The respondents/contemnors are directed to appear before this Court
on 19.03.2025 “for question of punishment”. In the result, the Contempt
Petitions are allowed.
05.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Mrn
Note : Issue order copy on 12.03.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
To
1.The District Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
Cont.P.(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
MRN
Cont.P(MD)Nos.424, 1765 and 1813 of 2024
05.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:36 pm )
