IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH Mohamed Ali B. ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Senthilkumari, Secretary, TN Construction Workers Welfare Board, No.8, Valluvarkottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

2. Pon Kumar, Chairman, TN Construction Workers Welfare Board, No.8, Valluvarkottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents Prayer: The Contempt Petition filed under section 11 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondents for wilfully disobeying the order of this Court dated 08.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.21709 of 2022.

For Petitioner : Ms. R. Renukadevi For Respondents : Mr.P. Muthu Kumar Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.K.Bhaskar and Ms. K. Valliammal, Standing Counsel

ORDER

The order in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.21709 of 2022 came to be passed on 08.11.2023. The operative portions of the order read as follows:-

“11. Now that it is shown that the petitioner was in possession of the certificate, even prior to the date of Notification and that the respondents, for the first time in this Writ Petition, have taken a stand that the petitioner has not produced the certificate during the verification, I am of the view that the petitioner may be directed to produce the certificates before the respondents for the purpose of obtaining an appointment order. I would hasten to add here that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had otherwise come out successful in the written examination and other selection processes. While that being so, there cannot be any impediment for the respondents to issue the required appointment order.

12. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, an interim order came to be passed on 21.06.2023, whereby, the respondents were directed to keep one post of Data Entry Operator vacant, till the final disposal of the Writ Petition. Thus, in view of the said interim order, the petitioner, as well as the other candidates, can always be accommodated in the vacant post.

13. For all the foregoing reasons, there shall be a direction to the respondents to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner, appointing him to the post of Data Entry Operator, together with the required posting order. Such an order shall be passed at least within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

2. In the present Contempt Petition, it is stated that the contemnors herein have not issued an appointment order to the post of Data Entry Operator to accommodate the petitioner in the vacant post kept, as per the interim order passed in the Writ Petition. The contempt petition was initially listed on 12.07.2024, at which point of time, learned Additional Advocate General was given time to get instructions. Thereafter, in the next hearing, when the order was not complied with, statutory notice came to be issued. Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 20.09.2024 and on that day also, the order was neither complied with nor was any counter affidavit in the contempt petition filed. In this background, the contemnors were once again directed to be present in the next hearing on 25.10.2025, to render their explanation as to why the order could not be complied with. Though the contemnors had received this statutory notice, they once again failed to appear. Thus, a bailable warrant was issued to secure their presence. In this background, the contempt petition was listed on 25.04.2025, 04.07.2025, 29.08.2025 and 31.10.2025 and in all these hearing dates, the only explanation rendered by the learned Additional Advocate General was that they have preferred an appeal against the order passed in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.3166 of 2024. Admittedly, no interim orders were passed in the Writ Appeal, staying the order in the Writ Petition.

3. Finally, when the matter was listed on 21.11.2025, I had recorded all these adjournments and the non-compliance of the order passed in the Writ Petition as well as the fai