Dr.S.Srigayathri, v. Dr.J.Sangumani, And Another

2025:MHC:893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Contempt Petition No. 2228 of 2024 W.M.P. No. 3815 of 2025 Contempt Petition No. 2228 of 2024 Dr. S. Srigayathri ..Petitioner Vs.

1.

Dr.J. Sangumani Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.

Dr.P. Balaji, The Dean, Stanley Medical College, Chennai - 600001.

..Respondents Prayer:

Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 26.02.2024 passed in W.P. No. 4595 of 2024 For Petitioner ::

Ms.K. Dhivyashree For Respondents ::

Mr.E. Sundaram, Govt. Advocate 1\4

1.

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

Directorate of Medical Education, rep. by the Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.

3.

Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services, rep. by the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, No. 359, Anna Salai, Chennai - 6.

4.

Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, rep. by its Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, No.359, Anna Salai, Chennai - 6.

5.

Government Stanley Medical College, rep. by its Dean, Chennai - 600 001.

..Petitioners Vs.

Dr. S. Srigayathri ..Respondent Prayer:

Review application to review the order dated 26.02.2024 passed in W.P. No. 4595 of 2024.

For Petitioners ::

Mr.E. Sundaram Govt. Advocate For Respondent ::

Ms.K. Dhivyashree for Mr.M. Vijayaraghavan COMMON ORDER 2\4

In the light of the order dated 29.01.2025 passed in Contempt Petition No. 3005 of 2024 wherein similar factual position arose, this contempt petition is closed.

In the interest of completion, the order dated 29.01.2025 passed in Contempt Petition No. 3005 of 2024 is extracted below: 'Mr.E.Sundaram, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

The directions under order dated 12.01.2024 as against which the contempt has been alleged are to the effect that the covid duty performed by petitioner must be taken into account to construe the bond period.

3.

The State had filed writ appeals in other similar matters and, vide order dated 20.11.2024, the Division Bench of this Court has held that covid duty cannot be taken into account to reckon the bond period.

4.

Ms.Gayathri, learned counsel for petitioner states that a Review Petition has been filed as against the aforesaid order. 5.

While the petitioner may well pursue the Review, this Court finds no reason to keep this contempt petition pending. 6.

Recording the aforesaid narration of events, this contempt petition is closed. No costs. Connected Sub Application is closed. Review Application No. 47 of 2025 stands allowed. Connected W.M.P. and contempt petition are closed.

21.03.2025 Index: Yes/No nv 3\4

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

nv Contempt Petition No. 2228 of 2024 21.03.2025 4\4