Rajeshwari v. Thiruvambalam Pillai And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.07.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Contempt Petition No.1339 of 2023 B.Rajeswari ...

Petitioner ...Vs...

1. Thiruvambalam Pillai, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (cbe), Ltd., Managing Director, 37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore.

2. Gopala Krishnan, The Assistant Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (cbe), Ltd., Chennimalai Road, Erode.

....

Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the Respondents for wilful disobedience of the order and for committing an act of contempt in failing to comply with the order passed by this Court in W.A.No.1692 of 2022 dated 12.01.2023. 1/4

For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Paramasivadoss For Respondents :

Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader ***

O R D E R

This Contempt Petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the judgment dated 12.01.2023 passed in W.A.No.1692 of 2022 by this Court.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 28.06.2023, the learned Special Government Pleader had filed an Affidavit dated 27.06.2023, seeking time to comply with the other portion of the judgment dated 12.01.2023 in W.A.No.1692 of 2022 in granting service benefits and at his request, the matter was directed to be listed today.

3. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents submitted that promotion has been given to the Petitioner as Assistant Manager with effect from 24.07.2023 and therefore, the judgment seeking noncompliance of which, this contempt petition has been filed, has been complied with. 2/4

4. In reply, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even though promotion has been granted with effect from 24.07.2023, she has not been granted with monetary benefits that she is entitled to.

5. In the case on hand, the issue is whether promotion and other benefits have got to be extended with retrospective effect. We are afraid that this issue cannot be dealt with in contempt jurisdiction, for, in contempt jurisdiction, what is to be seen is only the compliance or otherwise of the order and nothing beyond that.

In view of the same, this Contempt Petition stands closed, leaving all the issues open, to be agitated before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law, if so advised.

[S.V.N,J.,] [M.S.Q,J.,] arr 3/4

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J arr Contempt Petition No.1339 of 2023 4/4

5/4