Cont.P.(MD) No.952 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 28.09.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

Cont.P.(MD) No.952 of 2021

in

W.P.(MD) No.7393 of 2020

Packiyalakshmi

... Petitioner / Petitioner

Vs.

1. Mrs.R.Subhashini, M.B.A.,

Joint Registrar / Managing Director,

The Central Co-operative Bank Limited,

(A.314/2690) Head Office,

No: 4, M.G.R. Maligai,

Tiruvananthapuram Road,

Vanarapettai.

Tirunelveli district.

... Respondent / Respondent No.1

Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt

of Courts Act, to punish the respondents herein for their wilful

disobedience and non-compliance of the order passed by this

Hon'ble Court made in W.P.(MD)No.7393 of 2020, dated 08.07.2020.

Prayer in WP(MD). 7393/ 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified

mandamus, calling for the records pertaning to the impugned charge

Memo issued by the 1st respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.

33/2020/E1(2) dt. 24.02.2020 and quash the same as illegal and

consequetnly dirct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner

into service with all monetary and attended benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi

For Respondents : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi

Standing Counsel

ORDER

This contempt petition has been filed for the alleged

disobedience of the orders passed before this Court dated

08.07.2020 made in W.P.(MD) No.7393 of 2020.

2.Today when this case is taken up for hearing,

Mr.R.Karunanithi, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

1/3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Cont.P.(MD) No.952 of 2021

that, though a direction was given by this Court, in the said

order to pay substance allowance arrears and to continue to pay

subsistence allowance to the petitioner, since the petitioner is

entitled for the same as per the rate of subsistence allowance

provided under the Subsistence Allowance Act, but such rate of

subsistence allowance has not been paid by the respondent to the

petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is the

violation of the orders of this Court, therefore, he seeks

indulgence of this Court.

3.Further, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the

contesting respondent in the writ petition, on instructions would

submit that the petitioner was suspended from service with effect

from February 2020 and from that date he was paid the subsistence

allowance at the rate of 50%. Thereafter, from October 2020 till

July 2021, the enhanced subsistence allowance at the rate of 75%

had been paid continuously, and in so far as in the month of

August 2021, the amount would be credited to the account of the

petitioner within two days, thereby, without any arrears or due,

continuously the subsistence allowance has been paid. However,

the controversy arose in this case is even though 50% and

subsequently 75% of the subsistence allowance continuously being

paid to the petitioner, the petitioner insisted that after 6

months period of suspension, if it is prolonged, the

petitioner/employee would be entitled to get 100% subsistence

allowance as per the provisions of the Subsistence Allowance Act.

Therefore, by relying upon such provision, he seeks disbursal of

100 % subsistence allowance after 6 months period and since that

has not been adjusted by the respondent and only 75 % of the

subsistence allowance has been paid. He submits that it is the

violation.

4. In this context, the learned Standing counsel appearing for

the respondent would submit that, though six months time was given

by this Court to complete the enquiry, the enquiry has been

completed and the report is yet to be submitted. In the mean

while, under Section 81 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies

Act also, the enquiry