R.Thivakar v. Simranjeet Singh Kahlon Ias

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Cont.P.(MD)No. 3349 of 2025 in W.P.(MD) No.12522 of 2025 R.Thivakar ... Petitioner Vs

1. Simranjeet Singh Kahlon I.A.S., The District Collector Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2. Jai Anand, The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Kadaladi Panchayath Union, Ramanathapuram District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the contemnors/ respondents for willful disobedience to the order of this Court dated 29-04-2025 in W.P. (MD)No.12522 of 2025 and punish Contemnors/respondents for contempt.

1 / 6

For petitioner : Mr. V.R.Shanmuganathan For respondents : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment and the same was rejected. As against the rejection order, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.12522 of 2025 and the same was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 29.04.2025, as under:- 3.The date of death of the deceased employee was not prescribed as a cut off date in the Government Order and therefore, the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be restricted only to the deceased employees, where the date of death falls after the issuance of the said G.O.Ms.No.102. This being the view of this Court, the order impugned passed by the second respondent in proceedings dated 12.02.2025, is quashed 2 / 6

and the respondents are directed to re-consider the application submitted by the writ petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The petitioner with a grievance that he has not been provided with compassionate appointment, has filed this contempt petition. This Court has also taken cognizance in the contempt petition by its earlier order dated 03.11.2025.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the paragraph No.3 of the order submits that this Court has set aside the rejection order by observing that no cut off date has been prescribed in the Government Order. In that event, they ought to have accommodated the petitioner as per the Government Order. 3.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that though this Court has set aside the order of 3 / 6

rejection, there is no positive direction. However, this Court has issued a direction only to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. The respondents have considered and rejected the petitioner's claim In the absence of any positive direction, contempt has not been made out in this case.

4.Considering the nature of relief granted in the writ petition, this Court is not inclined to entertain this contempt petition. Accordingly, this contempt petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy in the manner known to law. 16.12.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gns 4 / 6

To 1.The District Collector Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Kadaladi Panchayath Union, Ramanathapuram District.

5 / 6

B.PUGALENDHI , J.

gns Cont.P.(MD) No. 3349 of 2025 16.12.2025 6 / 6