IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.09.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Contempt Petition No.858 of 2008 N.Prabhakaran Nair ... Petitioner Vs. 1. Mr.Ambu Sharma, The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai - 5 2. Mr.Sunil Babilal The District Collector Kanyakumari District Nagercoil 629 001 3. Mr.Shanmugavel The Revenue Divisional Offier Padmanabhapuram at Thuckalay Kanyakumari District 4. Ms.Leela Bai The Tahsildar Vilavancode Taluk Office at Kuzhithurai Kanyakumari District ... Respondents Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondents herein for their willful disobedience of the order of this Hon'ble court dated 14.03.2006 made in W.P.No.35630 of 2005. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Giridharan For Respondent : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Government Advocate O R D E R
Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. The petitioner herein was originally a village headman before the creation of the cadre of village administrative officers. Subsequent to the creation of the said cadre, as per orders of court, many persons who functioned as karnam and village headman were absorbed as village administrative officers subject to fulfillment of certain eligibility criteria. The petitioner was one such person, who was accommodated as a village administrative officer. For all such absorbed village administrative officers, a condition was prescribed for passing the departmental test and language test within a period of four years. Admittedly, the petitioner was not able to pass the language test in Tamil, though he was able to pass the other departmental tests. As such, till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2005, his services were not regularised. Before he attained the age of superannuation, he was served with a show cause notice as to why he should not be removed from service for not having passed the language test in Tamil.
3. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner approached the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking an order exempting him from passing Tamil language test as a pre-requisite for declaration of probation. As the said Tribunal came to be abolished subsequently, the original application was transferred to this court and re-numbered as writ petition No.35630 of 2005. This court, passed an order disposing of the said writ petition on 14.03.2006, operative portion of which reads as follows:-
” Since the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation after servicing for more than a period of 20 years, I am of the opinion that if the matter is remitted back to the Government so as to consider his representation, basing on the recommendation of the authorities, that will prolong the issue. Hence, the impugned order is set aside for the reasons stated above. The respondents are directed to grant exemption to the petitioner, with regard to passing of the departmental language test and to declare his probation, and consequently, pay all the terminal benefits, to the petitioner within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
4. Complaining that the said direction issued by this court has not been complied with, the petitioner has come forward with the present contempt petition.
5. The learned Government Advocate, representing the respondent, has today produced a copy of an order passed by the Government in G.O.(D) No.466 Revenue (Services 7(1) Department dated 16.08.2007 granting exemption to the petitioner from passing Tamil language test and regularising his services with effect from 30.03.2005 namely, a day before the date of superannuation. The government order referred to above also directed recovery of increments sanctioned to the petitioner in violation of Rule 23-A and also initiation of disciplinary action against the persons who allowed the petitioner to continue in service after he failed to get through the Tamil language test. Based on the said order of the Government, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram has passed an order on 16.09.2008 regularising the services of the petitioner and declaring completion of probation on 30.03.2005. After going through the said order, this court is satisfied that the said order is enough to comply with the direction issued by this court.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that regularising the petitioner’s services and declaring probation with effect from a day before the date of superannuation would amount to denial of all consequential benefits like, increments for the entire period of service and that hence the said order should not be accepted as an order passed in compliance with the direction issued by this court.
7. The learned Government Advocate, after referring to the operative part of the order of this court passed in the writ petition, has rightly pointed out that the direction to grant exemption was issued keeping the fact in mind that the petitioner should not be allowed to go without any terminal benefits because of the absence of order regularising the services of the petitioner and declaring successful completion of probation. By the present order of the respondent, the said object has been fulfilled. Therefore, this court is not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the direction issued by this court has been either violated or not fully complied with. This court also deems it fit to record compliance and close the contempt petition.
8. Accordingly, compliance is recorded and the contempt petition is closed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the correctness of the orders passed by the respondents in an appropriate proceedings, if so advised.
23.09.2008
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
asr/
P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.
asr/
Cont. Petn. No.858 of 2008
Dated : 23.09.2008