Mr.Sanjeev Thakur, v. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, I.A.S.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Mr.Sanjeev Thakur ... Petitioner -VsMr.Dheeraj Kumar, IAS., The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

... Respondent PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for willfully and deliberately violating the order passed in W.P.No.37359 of 2024 dated 16.12.2024. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Krishnamurthy For Respondent :

Mr.V.Manoharan Additional Government Pleader 1/5

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This contempt petition has been filed for the alleged disobedience of the orders passed by this Court dated 16.12.2024 in W.P.No.37359 of 2024.

2. By our order dated 16.12.2024, we had given direction to the respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner for medical reimbursement and pass necessary orders therein within a time frame.

3. The said order since has not been complied with, on that alleged reason, the present contempt petition has been filed.

4. However, today, when the matter is taken up for admission, Mr.V.Manoharan, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent i.e., Secretary to Government, Home Department, has produced G.O.(D).No.570, Home (Courts-V) Department dated 05.05.2025 and would submit that the orders of this Court have been complied with, as the medical reimbursement has been sanctioned.

2/5

5. Since the orders have been passed and the medical reimbursement has been sanctioned, the contempt petition cannot be further adjudicated.

6. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that medical reimbursement to the extent of Rs.5,31,383/- was sought for. However, based on the probable expenses as calculated by them, the respondent has sanctioned a sum of Rs.7,795/- only. Therefore, this kind of sanctioning of a paltry sum would amount to violation of the orders that has been passed by this Court. Therefore, it is a contemptible act by the respondent.

7. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

8. Since we had only directed the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and pass orders, and since an order has been passed and Government Order has been issued, we cannot take it as a contemptuous action. At the same time, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the order i.e., G.O.(D).No.570, Home (Courts-V) Department dated 05.05.2025, if he is advised to do so, in the manner known to law. 3/5

9. In that view of the matter, the contempt petition stands closed. (R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N., J.) 16.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No kak 4/5

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

and C.SARAVANAN, J.

kak 16.09.2025 5/5