← Library
Madras High CourtCONT P(MD)/952/2016closed

S.Jeyanthi v. Rajeevranjan

2017-10-13Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.10.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM CONT.P.(MD)No.952 of 2016 in W.P.(MD)No.20836 of 2015 S.Jeyanthi ... Petitioner / Petitioner Vs.

1. Rajeevranjan, I.A.S., The Secretary to Government of TamilNadu, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

2. G.R.Rajendran, The Director General, Highways Department, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

... Respondents / Respondents Prayer: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971, pleased to punish the respondents for committing contempt for the willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.20836 of 2015, dated 24.11.2015. Prayer in WP(MD). 20836/ 2015 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner along with the others for appointment to the post of Junior Draughting officer by relaxing the maximum age limit fixed in the notification No. 12390/Nir 5 (1)/2014 dated 26.10.2015 calling for application for filling up the post of Junior Draughting Officer in the highways department in respect of the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rengaramanujam For Contemnors : Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate

ORDER

The contempt petition is filed to punish the respondents for committing contempt for the willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.20836 of 2015, dated 24.11.2015.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Heard Mr.R.Rengaramanujam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate for the contemnors.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant on 01.08.1982 and this Court, in W.P.(MD)No.20836 of 2015, directed the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment. It is further submitted that the respondents have unsuccessfully challenged the order in W.A.(MD) No.1127 of 2016, but, the respondents regularised the service of the petitioner only from July 2017. In respect of other employees, their service was regularised from the date of initial appointment.

4. Considering the above facts, this contempt petition is closed giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order in the manner known to law. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar + 1 cc TO Mr.R.Rengaramanujam, Advocate in SR No. 82866 Sm AE/KK/SAR2/01.11.2017/2P/2C CONT.P.(MD)No.952 of 2016 in W.P.(MD)No.20836 of 2015 13.10.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/