Contempt Petitions PRAYER (Cont.P.(MD) No.326 of 2014): This petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for non- compliance of the order, dated 19.04.2013, passed in W.P.No.9987 of 2011. PRAYER (Cont.P.(MD) No.327 of 2014): This petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for non- compliance of the order, dated 19.04.2013, passed in W.P.No.9988 of 2011.
Since both the contempt petitions have been directed as against the very same common order of the Writ Court, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. These contempt petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the common order, dated 29.04.2013, made in W.P.(MD) Nos.9987 and 9988 of 2011.
3. The petitioner filed writ petitions, in W.P.(MD) Nos.9987 and 9988 of 2011, challenging the disciplinary actions initiated against him by the respondents herein and both the writ petitions were allowed, by a common order, dated 19.04.2013, with a direction to the respondents to settle the petitioner's retirement benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for T.N.E.B., appearing for the respondents produced a calculation memo, which shows that a sum of Rs.15,47,859/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs forty seven thousand eight hundred and fifty nine only) has been paid to the petitioner.
5. Thus, this Court of the view that there is no wilful disobedience of the order of the Writ Court. However, if there is any discrepancy as regards any of the amount which according to the petitioner, he is entitled to, then he shall make a specific request to that effect and give a separate calculation memo before the second respondent.
6. Therefore, while disposing of the contempt petitions, there will be a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation to the second respondent clearly indicating as to what is his claim. If such a representation is given, the second respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
To:
1.S.Easwara Subramanian, Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, K.Pudur, Madurai-7.
2.K.Selvakumar, Superintending Engineer, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle, Meenakshinaickenpatti, Dindigul-2.
3.M.Mohanasundaram, Regional Chief Engineer, Madurai Region, Tamilnadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Madurai-7..