K.Padmini v. N.Rajinikanth
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.09.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA K.Padmini ...
Petitioner Vs N.Rajinikanth ...
Respondent PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Sections 11 & 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent herein for Contempt of Court in accordance with law, for wilfully disobeying the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.12676 of 2025. For Petitioner ...
Mr.N.Jayabalan For Respondent ...
Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan Additional Govt.Pleader
ORDER
Alleging that the order of this Court dated 09.04.2025 in W.P.No.12676 of 2025 has not been complied with, the petitioner has come up with this contempt application. This Hon'ble Court, while disposing of W.P.No.12676 of 2025 has passed the following order; "This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction against the respondents to comply with the pension payable to the petitioner in 1/5
accordance with Rule 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules consequent to the invalidation of the service of he petitioner as Village Administrative Officer in Puliyur Village, Thiruvallur District, as per proceedings dated 22.05.2014 in R.C.No.927/2012/A1.
2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that the petitioner had been initially appointed as Village Administrative Officer on 26.04.1984 and completed probation on 25.04.1986 and services were regularized. But in the year 2012, she had to apply for leave owing to neurological problem. She had also been referred to the Regional Medical Board. The 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 22.05.2014 had accepted the recommendation of the Medical Board and the petitioner was invalidated from service on medical grounds with effect from 22.05.2014. The pension payable to the petitioner is, therefore, governed under Rule 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Seeking a direction that the pension should be paid to her, she had given a representation. 3.It is informed by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the 1st respondent had passed necessary orders and now the onus is on the 3rd respondent to pass consequential orders. It is stated that the 1st respondent had 2/5
passed the order on 04.04.2024.
4.A direction is given to the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on or before 31.05.2025. It is made clear that no further time would be granted and if orders are not passed, the 3rd respondent would be directed to be present in Court. The Writ petitioner stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move the matter again, if necessary orders are not passed on or before 31.05.2025. No costs." 2.It is the case of the petitioner that the direction given to the third respondent has not been complied with.
3.The third respondent is present before this Court. 4.Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that this Court, while disposing of W.P.No.12676 of 2025, has directed the third respondent to pass an appropriate order on or before 31.05.2025 with regard to the processing of pension papers of the petitioner. In due compliance of the order passed by this Court, the third respondent has forwarded the pension papers of the petitioner to the 3/5
Principal Accountant General, vide communication dated 22.05.2025 in letter K.Dis.No.2365/2025/A3 and thereby, the direction of this Court has been complied with fully.
5.Having gone through the records, this Court finds that the order of this Court dated 09.04.2025 has been duly complied with by the third respondent and nothing survives for adjudication. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he is at liberty to file a fresh writ petition (if so advised) impleading the Principal Accountant General as a party respondent, who is the authority to sanction the pension of the petitioner. 6.With these observations, the Contempt Petition is closed. Index : Yes/No 18.09.2025 Internet : Yes/No sms 4/5
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J., sms 18.09.2025 5/5