Madras High Court
Lakshmana Raja vs Sanmugam on 19 March, 2025
CONT.P(MD)No.399 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CONT.P(MD) No.399 of 2025
Lakshmana Raja ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Sanmugam
The Chief Educational Officer,
Pudukottai District.
2.Ramesh
The District Educational Officer,
Pudukottai,
Pudukottai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of
Court to punish the respondents 1 and 2/contemnors for wilful deliberate
disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.11413 of
2021 dated 28.07.2022.
For Petitioner :Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
For Respondents :Mr.F.Deepak
Special Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:21 pm )
CONT.P(MD)No.399 of 2025
ORDER
This Contempt Petition has been filed for non compliance of the
judgment and order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.11413 of 2021,
dated 28.07.2022.
2.Heard Mr.V.Panneer Selvam, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader for the
respondents.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the
respondents did not grant the said benefits, the petitioner, having no
alternative, filed W.P.(MD)No.11413 of 2021. The learned Single Judge
of this Court, vide order dated 28.07.2022, allowed the said writ petition.
For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the order in W.P.(MD) No.
11413 of 2021 is reproduced below:
“5.In the instant case, the Teacher was appointed
on 22.06.2011, which is prior to 15.11.2011 and by
applying the ratio laid down by this Court in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:21 pm )
aforesaid order dated 08.03.2019 and by taking into
consideration that the teacher was also appointed prior
to the notification, it has to be held that the requirement
of a pass in TET examination, is not mandatory. As such,
denial of the service and monetary benefits on the
ground that the concerned Teacher has not passed the
TET examination is not sustainable. By applying the
ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, this Court is of
the affirmed view that the petitioner would be entitled
for disbursement of all the service and monetary
benefits, without reference to her non-passing of the TET
examination, from the date of his appointment.
6.In the light of the above findings, the
respondents are directed to disburse all the service and
monetary benefits including yearly increments, incentive
increments, surrender leave benefits, to the petitioner,
from the date of his appointment, within a period of
twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. ”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:21 pm )
4.Aggrieved by the order passed by this Court on 28.07.2022 in
W.P.(MD)No.11413 of 2021, the respondents filed Writ Appeal in W.A.
(MD)No.1503 of 2024. The Division Bench of this Court, vide its
judgment and order dated 03.09.2024, dismissed the said Writ Appeal,
relying on the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in
T.Chitra Devi's case, as stated supra.
5.The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that
despite the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court on
03.09.2024 in W.A.(MD)No.1503 of 2024 and the order passed by the
Writ Court dated 28.07.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.11413 of 2021, the
Respondents have not complied with the directions of both Courts and
they have wilfully and deliberately flouting the orders passed by both
Courts. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the Respondents may be
summoned before this Court and punished for committing contempt by
exercising the powers under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:21 pm )
6.Today, when the matter is taken up, Mr.F.Deepak, learned
Special Government Pleader for the respondents has filed a compliance
affidavit, annexing a copy of the order of the second respondent dated
10.03.2025, in which it has been stated that the judgment and order
passed in W.P.(MD)No.11413 of 2021 and in W.A.(MD) No.1503 of
2024 dated 28.07.2022 and 03.09.2024 respectively has been complied
with. The compliance affidavit filed by the second respondent is taken on
record. A copy of the compliance affidavit and a copy of the order of the
second respondent dated 10.03.2025 has been given to the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Thus, he submits that the respondents may be
discharged from the present contempt proceedings, as the judgment and
order of this Court dated 28.07.2022 and 03.09.2024 has been fully
complied with by the respondents, vide order dated 10.03.2025.
7.Mr.V.Panneer Selvam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 28.07.2022 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:21 pm )
03.09.2024, the second respondent has passed the order dated
10.03.2025. Thus, he submits that he has no objection if the respondents
are discharged from the present contempt proceedings, as the judgment
and order of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.11413 of 2021, dated 28.07.2022
and in W.A.(MD) No.1503 of 2024, dated 03.09.2024 has been fully
complied with by the respondents, vide order dated 10.03.2025 and the
present Contempt Petition may also be disposed of at this stage. It was
further submitted that the petitioner may be given liberty to challenge the
order dated 10.03.2025 before the competent Court of law.
8.Accordingly, in view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, after perusal of the judgment and order passed in
W.P.(MD) No.11413 of 2021, dated 28.07.2022 and W.A.(MD) No.1503
of 2024, dated 03.09.2024 and after perusal of the order passed by the
second respondent, dated 10.03.2025, this Court satisfied that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:21 pm )
direction issued by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.11413 of 2021, dated
28.07.2022 and in W.A.(MD) No.1503 of 2024 dated 03.09.2024, has
been fully complied with by the respondents and there is no justification
in continuing the present contempt proceedings against the respondents.
9.Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is finally disposed of at this
stage and the respondents are discharged from the present contempt
proceedings. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the second
respondent, dated 10.03.2025, he can challenge the same before the
competent Court of law. No costs. The file is consigned to record.
Index :Yes / No 19.03.2025
Internet :Yes / No
mm
To
The Chief Educational Officer,
Pudukottai District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Pudukottai,
Pudukottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:21 pm )
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
mm
19.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:03:21 pm )
