N.Pandithurai v. Sivarasu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND in W.P.(MD) No.13168 of 2024 N.Pandithurai .. Petitioner Vs.

1.Sivarasu, The Director, Municipal Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

2.P.Krishnamoorthy, The Commissioner, Sivakasi Municipality, Sivakasi.

.. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the Contemnors/Respondents 2 and 4 for committing contempt for the willful disobedience of the order in W.P(MD).No.13168 of 2024 dated 20.06.2024.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Govindan

For Respondents :

Mr.D.Sachikumar (for R1) Additional Government Pleader Mr.S.Devasana Standing Counsel (for R2)

ORDER

This contempt case has been filed complaining willful disobedience of the respondents in implementing the order dated 20.06.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.13168 of 2024.

2. While disposing the said writ petition, this Court directed the second respondent therein, to pass appropriate orders on the recommendation made by the fourth respondent and by taking into consideration the earlier judicial pronouncements made in this regard on a writ petition filed by a similarly placed person and in whose favour rules were relaxed, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

3. Mr.D.Sachikumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the Director of Municipal Administration, is not

a competent authority to pass orders on the recommendation made by the fourth respondent. The Director of Municipal Administration has to forward the recommendation of the fourth respondent to the Government. In view of the above, the recommendation received from the fourth respondent was forwarded to the first respondent in W.P(MD).No.13168 of 2024 and now, the first respondent issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.216, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 17.04.2025, regularizing the service of the petitioner by relaxing the relevant Rules.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that after passing the order by the first respondent for regularising the service of the petitioner, the fourth respondent has sent a proposal to the Local Fund Authority to revise the pay of the petitioner.

5. Considering the above facts, in my considered view, no further adjudication is required in this petition.

6. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is closed. 22.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No (1/2) Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Rmk To 1.B.Chandra Mohan, I.A.S., Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Commissioner of Tourism (FAC), Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

2.Shilpa Prabhakar Satish, I.A.S., Commissioner /Director, Tourism Department, Tamil Nadu Tourism Complex, Wallajah Road, Chennai 600 002.

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

Rmk Dated : 22.04.2025 (1/2)