Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
V.Mercy Ratnabai - Appellant
Versus
Mr.M.Sivakumar, Chief Educational Officer - Respondent
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1041 of 2025 In W.P.(MD)No.13929 of 2018
Decided on : 28-04-2025
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 11 and 12 - Contempt proceedings initiated for non-compliance with court order - Respondent failed to comply with the order dated 17.10.2024 in W.P.(MD) No. 13929 of 2018 regarding appointment approval - Court quashed the refusal to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Sewing Mistress. (Paras 3, 4, 9)
(B) Compliance with Court Orders - The Respondent was granted a last opportunity to comply with the court's order, with a directive to communicate compliance and file an affidavit. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought contempt proceedings against the Respondent for not complying with a court order that approved her appointment as Sewing Mistress, which was initially rejected. The court had previously ruled that the post was sanctioned and the refusal to approve was quashed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Respondent had complied with the order and assured that monetary benefits would be disbursed within two months.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Respondent had complied with the court's order regarding the petitioner's appointment and salary disbursement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of compliance with its orders and noted that the Respondent had ultimately complied, leading to the discharge of contempt proceedings.
Result: Contempt proceedings disposed of and Respondent discharged.
ORDER
This is a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Respondent for violation of the order, dated 17.10.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.13929 of 2018.
2. Heard Mr.A.Ajithgeethan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent.
3. When the matter was taken up on 07.04.2025, this Court passed the following order:
“2. Mr.A.Ajithgeethan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the post of Pre-vocational Instructor (Weaving) is a sanctioned post in the Respondent Institution and the approval to the appointment of the Petitioner was rejected by the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli through the order dated 08.01.2018. Aggrieved by the respondents' action, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 13929 of 2018 and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 17.10.2024 allowed the aforementioned Writ Petition. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:
“7. Since the law is now well settled that the Pre-Vocational Instructor (Weaving) post is a Sanctioned post and the conversion of the Pre- Vocational Instructor (Weaving) post to the Sewing Mistress post is legally permissible, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the third respondent will have to be quashed and this Writ Petition will have to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order issued by the third respondent, dated 08.01.2018, refusing to approve the appointment of petitioner as Sewing Mistress in the fourth respondent school with effect from 06.09.2017 is hereby quashed and this Writ Petition is allowed by directing the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli to approve the appointment of petitioner in the fourth respondent school as Sewing Mistress with effect from 06.09.2017 by sanctioning the conversion of Pre- Vocational Instructor post of Weaving Teacher into that of Sewing Mistress post and disburse her salary with all other attendant benefits within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that despite the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 17.10.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.13929 of 2018, the Respondent has not complied with the directions of this Court and they have wilfully and deliberately flouting the orders passed by this Court. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the Respondent is in contempt and the Respondent may be summoned before this Court and punished for committing contempt by exercising the powers under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 .
4. Upon perusing the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 17.10.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.13929 of 2018 as well as the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition, which states that the respondents have not complied with the order of this Court, this Court is of the view that the respondent appears to have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court. Consequently, this Court deems it necessary to initiate proceedings against the Respondent for their alleged non-compliance with the said order.
5. Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent, request time to ensure compliance with the Court’s judgment dated 17.10.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.13929 of 2018. He also assure this Court that whatever order is passed by this Court will be fully complied with and requests 10 days' time to ensure compliance with the said order.
6. In view of the assurance given by Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent, this Court grants the Respondent a last opportunity to comply with the judgment and order of this Court dated 17.10.2024 in W.P.(MD) No. 13929 of 2018, without fail, within a period of 10 days from today. The Respondent is directed to communicate th
Compliance with court orders is essential, and failure to do so may lead to contempt proceedings, which can be dropped upon fulfillment of the order.
Compliance with court orders is essential, and failure to do so may lead to contempt proceedings, as emphasized by the court's directive for timely disbursement of benefits.
Compliance with court orders is essential, and failure to comply may lead to contempt proceedings; the respondent must ensure the petitioner receives due benefits.
Court reaffirmed the necessity of compliance with judicial orders, emphasizing that non-compliance can lead to contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Compliance with court orders is mandatory, and failure to adhere can lead to contempt proceedings as ruled in the present case.
Willful disobedience of a court order constitutes contempt of court, and the sincerity of an apology in contempt cases is crucial in determining its acceptance.
Court emphasized the necessity of compliance with judicial orders, ruling that willful disobedience constitutes contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Compliance with court orders, once established, mitigates contempt proceedings, reaffirming the importance of procedural respect by public authorities.
Non-compliance with court orders constitutes contempt, but fulfillment of directives leads to discharge from contempt proceedings.
The court found no grounds for contempt as the government complied with orders despite delays, emphasizing compliance assessment only.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
