SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. MALA, J
M.P.Rajakumari – Appellant
Versus
Dheeraj Kumar – Respondent
Contempt Petition|W.P.No.4184 of 2022



Advocates:
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For Contemnor(s): Mr.T.Chandrasekaran

Contempt not maintainable for enforcing unspecified consequential service benefits.

Headnote:The court examined Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in a petition alleging wilful disobedience of a prior order dated 23.04.2025 in W.P.No.4184 of 2022, which quashed disciplinary proceedings due to an incompetent authority issuing the charge memo, setting aside punishment, appellate, and review orders. Petitioner claimed denial of service benefits, promotion, salary arrears, and increments post-01.04.2018. The court found no specific direction for consequential reliefs in the writ order. Issues framed: maintainability of contempt for claiming service benefits absent explicit directions; whether inaction constitutes contempt. Ratio: Contempt proceedings cannot enforce unspecified consequential reliefs like service benefits; petitioner must pursue separate legal remedies. Contempt petition closed with liberty to seek other remedies.

Table of Content
1. petition alleges wilful disobedience of writ order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contempt not for unspecified consequential reliefs. (Para 4)

ORDER

This contempt petition is filed to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying the order dated 23.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.4184 of 2022 on the file of this Court.

2. The petitioner has filed the contempt petition on the ground that consequent to the order passed in the writ petition, the consequential service benefits restoring the promotion on par with his juniors and his arrears of salary have not been paid. The petitioner has been denied annual increment after 01.04.2018. The petitioner, aggrieved by the inaction and deliberate intentional violation of the order of this Court, has filed the above contempt petition.

3. This Court passed the following order in the writ petition:

“11. Therefore, the issuance of the charge memo by an authority who is not legally competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings renders the charge memo illegal and invalid. Consequently, the entire disciplinary proceedings founded on an illegal charge memo stand vitiated. Hence, the punishment order dated 07.06.2018, the appellate order dated 15.10.2019, and the review order dated 16.12.2021, are all unsustainable and hence set aside.”

4. In the absence of any specific direction to grant the consequential reliefs such as service benefits to the petitioner, in the considered view of this Court, the same cannot be claimed under the contempt proceedings. Therefore, this Court finds that the contempt petition is not maintainable.

Hence, this contempt petition is closed. In any event, the petitioner is granted liberty to work out the remedies available to him in accordance with law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top