The specific direction of the court in implementing its orders is crucial in determining contempt of court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed Under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent herein namely the Government of Tamilnadu represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Prison.II) Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009, in wilfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated 11.04.2019 made in W.P.No.42 of 2015 by not issuing any consequential order till date as per Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.)

1. The Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondent for their wilful disobedience of the order dated 11.04.2019 made in W.P.No.42 of 2015.

2. This Court passed an order on 11.04.2019 as under:

“8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the first respondent is directed to regularise the service of the petitioner from 29.09.2000 and extend the service benefits to the petitioner derived out of such regularisation. Such exercise shall be done by the first respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”

3. The petitioner again filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20049 of 2020 to implement the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.42 of 2015. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 04.01.2021. Thus, the petitioner filed the present contempt petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that this Court directed the respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioner from 29.09.2000 and extend the service benefits to the writ petitioner derived out of such regularization. Therefore, the direction includes arrears of monetary benefits and the Government passed an order, granting service benefits including the monetary benefits.

5. It is not in dispute between the parties that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.42 of 2015 has been implemented by the Government in G.O.(Ms).No.339, Home (Prison.II) Department dated 19.08.2021.

6. In the said Government order, the petitioner was conferred with the benefit of regularization with effect from 29.09.2000 by granting benefits notionally.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the notional benefits granted is not in accordance with the orders passed by this Court. But the monetary benefits are to be granted.

8. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is the retrospective regularization, which is ordered in favour of the writ petitioner. This Court did not specifically directed the respondents to calculate the arrears of monetary benefits, which is to be paid. Contrarily, this Court directed the respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioner with effect from 29.09.2000 and extend the service benefits. The service benefits are already extended to the writ petitioner including notional fixation of pay and the monetary benefits from the actual date and seniority. However, regarding arrears of monetary benefits are concerned, unless there is a specific direction by the Court, the same cannot be granted in a contempt proceedings.

9. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that the respondent has not committed any contempt wilfully nor wantonly.

10. Thus, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs.