Contempt requires proof of wilful disobedience; full implementation of modified punishment through government order and settlement of pension benefits negates any cause for proceedings.

[Made by S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.,]

The present contempt petition has been instituted to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 20.04.2024 in W.A.No.1021 of 2024. The operative portions of the order read as follows:

“13. In the result, the Writ Appeal is Partly Allowed and the impugned order dated 21.02.2020 made in W.P.No.12250 of 2010, is set aside and the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 03.12.2007 as confirmed by the 1^st respondent vide proceedings dated 15.02.2008 is modified and the punishment of treating the suspension period as the substantive punishment, is set aside and instead the petitioner is imposed with postponement of one increment without cumulative effect.

14. In the light of the modification of punishment, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pass appropriate orders / proceedings, as expeditiously as possible and not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order / uploading of the order in the Website and communicate the decision taken to the respondent / writ petitioner and consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

No costs.”

2. In view of the modification of the punishment by this Court, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.86 Tamil Development and Information Department dated 13.08.2021. Accordingly, the modified punishment was implemented and consequently, the pension benefits were also settled.

3. The affidavit filed by the Secretary to the Government, Tamil Development and Information Department would show that the punishment, as directed by this Court, was implemented and the difference amount in the pension benefits from the office (i.e., from the Tamil Nadu Government M.G.R Film and Television Institute), where the petitioner worked during his retirement and benefits from the Accountant General were sanctioned and paid to the petitioner, since he retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 30.06.2008.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that, even after passing of the Government Order, the Additional Director has addressed a letter on 12.01.2023 stating that further report is called for from the Film Institute.

5. Such a letter would not raise any cause for continuation of the present contempt proceedings. The direction issued by this Court was implemented by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 13.08.2021. 6. Pursuant to the Government Order, all terminal and pension benefits due to the petitioner, after adjusting the pension amount, were sanctioned and paid to him. That being the factum, there is no wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court established for the purpose of entertaining the present contempt petition.

7. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed.