The main legal point established in the judgment is that willful disobedience of court orders, delays in compliance, and attempts to defeat court orders constitute contempt of court, and unconditional apologies offered only after the threat of punishment may not be accepted.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the contemnors/respondents for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.10915 of 2007, dated 03.12.2012.)

1. This Contempt case has been filed complaining willful disobedience of the order, dated 03.12.2012 in W.P.(MD)No.10915 of 2007 in true letter and spirit.

2. On behalf of Respondent No.1, affidavits and additional affidavits have been filed along with material papers.

3. Heard Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Veerakathiravan and Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

4. While allowing the Writ Petition on 03.12.2012, this Court directed the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1979 on par with that of the similarly placed persons and extend the monetary benefits by passing suitable orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Court is not complied with in true letter and spirit and the petitioner''s service was regularized by the respondents only on 19.03.2021 and monetary benefits are not paid as per the observation of this Court, dated 20.10.2021 in this Contempt case. As such the respondents are liable for punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act for the willful disobedience of the Court order.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 03.12.2012, the respondents have filed a Writ Appeal and it was dismissed on 05.08.2019 and thereafter, on 19.03.2021 the petitioner''s service was regularized and immediately monetary benefits were settled on par with the similarly situated persons w.e.f. 30.06.2006 and as such there is no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the order and sought for dismissal of the Contempt case.

7. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and on carefully gone through the materials on record, this Court is of the prima facie view that the order of this Court is not complied with in true letter and spirit by the respondents and issued statutory notice directing the respondents to appear before the Court by order, dated 05.07.2023.

8. Accordingly, on 19.07.2023, all respondents present before this Court and sought time to comply with the order in toto. Now the respondents issued G.O.(Ms) No.92, School Education (ER&T) Department, dated 20.07.2023 to extend the monetary benefits w.e.f 27.01.2000 to 29.06.2006 and also placed a certificate from the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Munanjipatti, Tirunelveli District, wherein, it is stated that a sum of Rs.1,38,486/- has been credited to the petitioner''s account on 28.07.2023 as per G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 20.07.2023.

9. On perusal of the Order Sheet of this case, it appears that earlier on 05.02.2021, a statutory notice was issued to the respondents. However, liberty is granted to file a petition for dispensing with the appearance of the contemnors along with the compliance report, if the order is complied with. But the order is not complied with. The first respondent filed dispensed with petition. Again the case is adjourned to 19.03.2021 for reporting compliance, failing which, for the appearance of the first respondent on 19.03.2021. Considering the request of the respondents that due to Election Model Code of Conduct, the G.O was not issued, posted to 01.04.2021 for reporting compliance and for issuing of Government Order.

10. On perusal of the G.O.(1D)No.52, dated 19.03.2021, though the petitioner''s service was regularized from 01.04.1979, restricted the monetary benefits from the date of his retirement, this Court came to prima facie opinion that it is a Con