C.Vasudevan v. Supriya Sahu Ias

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED C.Vasudevan ... Petitioner vs.

Supriya Sahu, I.A.S., Principal Secretary to Government, Environment and Forests Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

... Respondent PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order, dated 20.02.2014 in Writ Petition (MD)No.3837 of 2008. For Petitioner :Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar For Respondent :Mr.F.Deepak Special Government Pleader ***** 1/6

O R D E R

This is a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for violation of the order, dated 20.02.2014 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(MD)No.3837 of 2008.

2.Heard Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.

3.The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order, dated 20.02.2014 in W.P.(MD)No.3837 of 2008, had passed the following order:- "5.In the result, the fourth respondent-secretary to Government, Environment and Forests Department is directed to regularise the petitioner's service in the post of permanent drier in the respondent corporation from the date of his completion of 10 years of service ie., from 7.9.2000 with all service, monetary and attendant benefits. The whole exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs."

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the judgment and order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3837 of 2008, 2/6

dated 20.02.2024, the respondent had not complied with the directions of this Court and she had wilfully and deliberately flouting the orders passed by this Court, dated 20.02.2014. Thus, the learned Counsel submits that the respondent should be summoned and punished for committing contempt by exercising the powers under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

5.Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the judgment and order of the Writ Court, dated 20.02.2014 passed in W.P.(MD)No.3837 of 2008, the respondent had preferred a Writ Appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court bearing W.A.(MD)No.140 of 2024, which was partly allowed by the Hon'ble Division Bench by judgment and order, dated 23.047.2025 and the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court, dated 23.07.2025 passed in W.P.(MD)No.3837 of 2008 was modified. The operative portion of the appellate Court order is re-produced hereunder: "5.But there is one vital difference. The writ petitioner was not a temporary employee. He was a regular employee in a lower post. He was asked to work in a higher post without formally promoting or appointing him to that post. Hence, he will have to be accorded a greater relief apart from applying the ratio laid down in Jagjit Singh. When the writ petitioner worked as driver from 2000 3/6

till 2017, he ought to have been paid the corresponding allowances and other monetary benefits which will be payable to a driver. Therefore, even while holding that the writ petitioner shall be deemed to have retired only as factory worker, the appellant management is directed to compute the monetary benefits payable to the writ petitioner and pay the same within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the said amount is paid within twelve weeks, the question of paying interest does not arise at all. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside. This writ appeal stands partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."

6.Thus, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent may be directed to comply with the direction issued by the appellate Court and the present Contempt Petition may be closed at this stage. 7.Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent submits that Writ Appeal preferred by the respondent was partly allowed on 23.07.2025 and the direction issued by the appellate Court in paragraph No.5 shall be complied with as per the time limit stipulated by the appellate Court. Thus, he submits that the present respondent may be discharged from the present contempt proceedings and the present Contempt Petition may be disposed of.

4/6

8.Accordingly, after considering the arguments, as advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the records and the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, dated 23.07.2025 in W.A.(MD)No.140 of 2024, especially in paragraph No. 5, this Court is also satisfied that no useful purpose will be served in continuing the present contempt proceedings any further. Accordingly, the respondents are discharged from the present contempt proceedings at this stage and the present Contempt Petition is disposed of. The respondent shall comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.140 of 2024, dated 23.07.2025, as per the time frame fixed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. The file is consigned to record. No order as to costs.

Index :Yes / No 21.08.2025 NCC :Yes / No cmr To The Principal Secretary to Government, Environment and Forests Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

5/6

cmr 21.08.2025 6/6