S.Sivasankaran v. Gagandeepsingh Bedi Ias
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.07.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Contempt Petition No.259 of 2016 1.S.Sivasankaran 2.L.Dorairaj 3.V.Ramachandran 4.S.Balamurugan 5.S.Kaliyappan 6.P.Raju 7.S.Sundaravalli 8.M.Vijaya 9.D.paul Grunapoo 10.K.Jansi Rani ... Petitioners vs.
Gangandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S., Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15.
... Respondent Contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for his wilful disobedience in not complying with the order of this Court dated 20.2.2014 made in W.P.No.4879 of 2014.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mani For Respondent : Mr.R.Rajeswaran, Spl. Govt. Pleader
ORDER
The writ petition in W.P.No.4879 of 2014 was filed by the petitioners numbering 21 for a mandamus, to direct the respondent to implement the order passed by the
Government in G.O.Ms.No.38, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 3.5.2013 in their favour so as to enable them to get posting orders in the cadre post of Record Clerk, within a time limit to be stipulated by this Court. In the said writ petition, this Court, by an order dated 20.2.2014, directed the petitioners numbering 21 to submit a fresh representation, ventilating their grievances to the respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and on receipt of the same, the respondent was directed to consider the said representations and pass appropriate orders in the light of Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.38, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 3.5.2013, within a period of four weeks from the date of submitting the representations by them.
Out of the said 21 persons, 10 persons have filed the present contempt petition stating that as per the order of this Court, though they have submitted individual representations to the respondent to implement the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.38, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 3.5.2013, the same was not complied with.
2. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the respondent has filed a detailed counter stating that out of ten petitioners, necessary posting orders have been issued to the petitioners No.1, 4 and 6 to 10 and they have also joined duty. So far as the other
petitioners viz., petitioners No.2, 3 and 5 are concerned, since they have not completed ten years of service, their request was rejected. But, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners denied the said statement made in the counter affidavit. However, since the order of this Court has been complied with, I am of opinion, nothing survives in this contempt petition. If the petitioners No.2, 3 and 5 are aggrieved over the said order, they have to work out their remedy by way of filing a separate writ petition.
3. In fine, the contempt petition is closed. However, liberty is given to the petitioners No.2, 3 and 5 to file fresh writ petition, if they are so advised. sbi SD/ JOINT REGISTRAR(OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2016. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
CO/12/08/2016 One CC to Government Pleader, SR.8949/2016 To The Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15.