R.Thiyagarajan v. Gagandeep Singh Bedi, Ias And 2 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR Cont.P .N o.1877 of 20 R.Thiyagarajan S/o.P.Rajagopal, No.2/386, Main Road, Neelapadi, Kuthur Post-611 105, Nagapattinam District.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Gagandeep Singh Bedi, IAS., Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2.P.Ponniah, I.A.S., Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

3.P.Akash I.A.S District Collector, Nagappattinam, Nagappattinam District.

Contemnor(s) 1/6

Prayer: This Contempt Petition is filed Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of this Court order in W.P.No.8296 of 2018, dated 28.07.2022. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.Arumugam For Respondent(s): Mr.C.P.Goutham Government Advocate

ORDER

This Contempt Petition is filed to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of this Court order in W.P.No.8296 of 2018, dated 28.07.2022.

2. The order copy was uploaded on the High Court website/portal thereafter. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order on 29.07.2022 and the same was made ready on 02.01.2023 and delivered on 03.01.2023.

2/6

3. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that despite this Court giving the following directions: (i) the respondents to include the name of the petitioner for the panel year 2015 by taking into account the crucial Development Officer and accordingly place him in the appropriate place based on the seniority among those who got promoted in the said panel year i.e., 2015 and consequently he shall be given promotion from that date. (ii) It is made clear that if such a promotion is given to the petitioner, that shall be treated only as a notional promotion for which the petitioner is not entitled for any salary difference by way of backwages. However, that period of promotion shall be treated as a service period ad a continuity of service for all other promotion, the respondents did not comply with the order and have wilfully disobeyed the order.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the petitioner following up the matter with the respondents, the respondents kept the issue pending and as such, the petitioner was constrained to file the present contempt case on 02.06.2025.

5. I have taken note of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner.

3/6

6. At the outset, it is to be noted that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prescribes the limitation of one year for initiating contempt proceedings.

7. This Court by order dated 28.11.2025 in Cont.P.Nos.2599 and 3033 of 2025 and by order dated 12.09.2025 in Cont.P.No.2706 of 2025 had considered the scope of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'Act 1971') and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, and also as to what would constitute continuing cause of action.

8. This Court having regard to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.Tirupathi Rao V. M.Lingamaiah and others reported in 2024 SCC online 1764, has held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, being a specific provision, the contempt petition has to be filed within one year when the cause of action arises.

9. In the facts of the present case, the cause of action for the petitioner to initiate action for contempt had arisen on expiry of eight weeks time granted by this Court from the date of receipt of a copy of the 4/6

order dated 28.07.2022. The petitioner not only did not take steps thereafter within time prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act, but remained silent for a considerable length of time and approached this Court by filing the present contempt case nearly 3 years later.

10. Having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court as noted herein above, the present contempt petition cannot be entertained, having been filed beyond the limitation prescribed under the Act, 1971.

11. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to work out his remedy, if so advised, in the manner known to law.

25.06.2026 Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No dna 5/6

T.VINOD KUMAR , J.

dna Cont.P .No.1877 of 2025 25.06.2026 6/6