IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-02-2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Contempt Petition Nos.1451 and 1455 of 2009 E.Natarajan .. Petitioner in both the contempt petitions. Versus 1.Mrs. Nalini, District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Kancheepuram, kancheepuram District. 2.Mr.D.Narasimha Varman, Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents in both the contempt petitions. Prayer in Contempt Petition No.1451 of 2009: Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71 to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order, dated 21.7.2009, made in W.P.No.46094 of 2006. Prayer in Contempt Petition No.1455 of 2009: Petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71 to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order, dated 21.7.2009, made in W.P.No.46094 of 2006. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. Contempt Petition No.1451 of 2009, has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court, by willful disobedience of the order, dated 21.7.2009, made in W.P.No.46094 of 2006.
3. Contempt Petition No.1455 of 2009, has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court, by willful disobedience of the order, dated 21.7.2009, made in W.P.No.49380 of 2006.
4. This Court, by its order, dated 21.7.2009, had directed that re-fixation of the pay scale of the petitioner and the payment of the pensionary benefits, based on the revised pay scale, shall be done only after the issuance of a notice to the petitioner and after giving him sufficient opportunity to put forth his case.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondents had disobeyed the said directions issued by this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that orders had been passed re-fixing the pay scale of the petitioner. However, the Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements) Tamilnadu, had objected to such fixation of pay scale of the petitioner, by his proceedings, dated 27.10.2010. Therefore, there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 21.7.2009.
7. In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents had not committed contempt of Court, by willful disobedience of the order, dated 21.7.2009, made in W.P.Nos.46094 and 49380 of 2006. Therefore, the contempt petitions stand closed. No costs.
csh