R.Vijaya Kumar v. B.Murugesh Ias

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.03.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Contempt Petition No.447 of 2023 R.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner Vs Mr.B.Murugesh, I.A.S., The District Collector, Office of the District Collectorate, Thiruvannamalai District.

... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondent for wilful disobeying the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15721 of 2021 dated 29.07.2021. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivasubramanian For Respondent : Dr.T.Seenivasan Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner in the contempt petition filed a writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 07.04.2021 in the 1/5

light of a judgment of this Court in Rev.Apln.No.88 of 2012 dated 18.07.2012. The said writ petition was disposed by this Court, by order dated 29.07.2021, in the following lines:

"6.This Court, considering the limited scope of prayer sought for by the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner-s representation or the case projected by him in this writ petition, directs the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 07.04.2011 in the light of the order passed in the Review Petition No.88/2011 dated 18.07.2012 and on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner herein."

2. In the representation dated 07.04.2021, the petitioner requested for compassionate appointment on the ground that his father Raju, working as Village Assistant, died on 20.03.2000 while he was in service and that the petitioner's application was earlier rejected on the ground that his brother by name Selvakumar was in Government Service. He further stated that he preferred a review application as against the order dismissing his earlier writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. It 2/5

is further stated that the previous order of District Collector dated 02.09.2010 should be cancelled and that he should be given employment. Stating that the representation was not considered, he approached this Court earlier by filing a writ petition.

3. Pursuant to the order of this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the respondent viz., District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, by Proceedings dated 13.03.2023, has rejected the representation of the petitioner giving several reasons.

4. Considering the limited scope of the prayer in the contempt petition, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the order passed by the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai dated 13.03.2023. Since this Court has granted only limited relief by directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks, this Court finds no willful disobedience on the part of the respondent. The delay is also explained by the District Collector in his further letter addressed to the Government Pleader.

3/5

5. Having regard to the fact that the representation of the petitioner has been duly considered in accordance with the directions of this Court, this Court finds no merits in this contempt petition and hence, this Contempt Petition is closed recording the aforesaid compliance. 30.03.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Sgl 4/5

S.S.SUNDAR, J.

Sgl Contempt Petition No.447 of 2023 30.03.2023 5/5