K. Dharmalingam, v. J. Radhakrishnan And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND K. Dharmalingam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.J. Radhakrishnan, The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

2.M. Kalaiselvi ... Respondents PRAYER: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act for the willful disobedience of the order dated 06.10.2023 made in W.P.No.18731 of 2021.

For Petitioner : Mr. M.R. Dhalapaty Vignesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr. K. Rajkumar, Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This Contempt Petition has been filed complaining wilful disobedience of the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 18731 of 2021.

2. While allowing the said writ petition, a learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the impugned order therein and consequently directed 1/4

the respondents therein to consider the petitioner's request to appoint him on compassionate grounds in accordance with law.

3. During the course of hearing of this case today, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed a copy of the letter dated 12.06.2025 issued by the Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (Administrative Branch) to the Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, Erode wherein, it is stated that the Chairman and Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited has directed to provide appointment to the petitioner and accordingly, consequent to the issuance of the said appointment order, the petitioner has to submit required documents to take further steps.

4. In the light of the said letter, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that after submission of the required documents, further steps will be taken to issue posting orders to the petitioner consequent to his appointment.

5. In view of the above factual position, in our considered view, no 2/4

further adjudication is required in the present contempt case.

6. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is closed.

7. However, it is made it clear that the petitioner is at liberty to make mention before this Court to restore this contempt case, if any, grievances to him in getting the posting orders. 16.06.2025 Index :Yes/No AT 3/4

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

AT 16.06.2025 4/4