S.Ganesan v. M.Sivakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI S.Ganesan
...Petitioner
vs.
1. M.Sivakumar, The Chief Educational Officer, Collectorate Campus, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli.
2. B.Shayee Subbulakshmi, The District Educational Officer, Corporation Commercial Complex, Tirunelveli Junction, Tirunelveli-627 001.
3. S.K.Stalin, Correspondent/Administrator, Concordia Higher Secondary School, Vadakkangulam, Tirunelveli District-627 001.
...Respondents
Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying to punish the Contemnors/Respondents herein for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 09.01.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.15380 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)No.14048 of 2024.
1/5
For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Jacob For Respondents : Mr.S.Siva Subramanian, Government Advocate for R1 and R2 Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar for R3
ORDER
The petitioner, a suspended employee, has filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.15380 of 2022 seeking payment of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension from 23.09.2000. After considering the rival submissions, this Court, by order dated 09.01.2025, permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the present Management and directed the present Management to consider the petitioner's case and pay the eligible subsistence allowance as per the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, within a period of twelve weeks from thereon. The petitioner has now filed the present contempt petition alleging noncompliance of the said order.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that the subsistence allowance due to the petitioner from 23.09.2000 till 17.03.2005 has already been settled by the Management. 2/5
3. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner disputes the same and contends that the petitioner continued under suspension till the year 2023.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has produced an order of dismissal dated 16.03.2005, stating that the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 17.03.2005 and that no formal approval was required from the concerned Chief Educational Officer, since it is a minority institution.
5. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to the proceedings of the District Collector dated 10.07.2020, submits that the institution was under Government management in view of disputes in the Management.
6. Considering the scope of contempt proceedings and the fact that the petitioner was placed under suspension and subsequently dismissed from service on 16.03.2005, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has to work out his remedy only by challenging the order of dismissal in the manner known to law.
3/5
7. In view of the above, no further orders are required in this Contempt Petition and the same is closed.
22.06.2026 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No mbi To
1. The Chief Educational Officer, Collectorate Campus, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli.
2. The District Educational Officer, Corporation Commercial Complex, Tirunelveli Junction, Tirunelveli-627 001.
4/5
B .PUGALENDHI , J.
mbi 22.06.2026 5/5