Madras High Court
M.Rathakrishnan vs Thiru.Shambhu Kallolikar on 10 July, 2026
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 03.07.2026
Pronounced on : 10.07.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
in WP.No.6172 of 2011
M.Rathakrishnan ... Petitioner
vs
Thiru.Shambhu Kallolikar
Principal Secretary
Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and
Khadi Department
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009. … Respondents
Prayer: Sub Application is filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen Contempt
Petition No.871 of 2021 in WP.No.6172 of 2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.Radhakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.T.Gowthaman, AAG
Assisted by Mr.C.P.Goutham, GA
ORDER
1/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
This Sub Application is filed to reopen the Contempt Petition No.871 of
2021 in WP.No.6172 of 2011 which was closed on 13.12.2022.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional
Advocate General for the respondent and perused the records.
3. The petitioner mainly contended that he had approached this Court by
filing the subject Contempt Petition claiming that the respondent willfully
disobeyed the order passed by this Court in WP.No.6172 of 2011 dated
27.02.2020.
4. The petitioner contended that he had approached this Court by filing
WP.No.6172 of 2011 seeking for quashing of the GO.No.160 dated 24.11.2010
and GO.(2D).No.5 dated 30.03.2010 issued by the first respondent in the writ
petition and to direct the respondent therein to disburse the amount withheld
through the impugned order as well as all the increment which has been withheld
and to further direct the respondents therein to treat the period of suspension from
2/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
05.05.1986 to 30.06.1992 as on duty for all purposes with consequential directions
to the respondent to disburse all the arrears accrued on the above head together
with compensation for the mental agony caused to the petitioner for over a period
of 25 years.
5. It is contended by the petitioner that this Court by considering the
matter in detail had allowed the writ petition on 27.02.2020 by setting aside the
impugned orders impugned therein vide GO.(2D).No.5 dated 30.03.2010 and
GO.No.160 dated 24.11.2010 and held that the petitioner is entitled to all the
monetary and attendant benefits; and that the respondent was directed to settle the
dues within period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent/State had
preferred an writ appeal in WA.No.1342 of 2021, and the Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated 04.03.2022 had dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.02.2020.
7. The petitioner, thus contended that the order by which the GO’s
3/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
impugned in the writ petition were set aside had attained finality and that the
respondent were duty bound to implement the said orders of this Court.
8. The petitioner contended that despite the order in WP.No.6172 of
2011 having attained finality on dismissal of the writ appeal, on the respondent
failure to implement the said order by taking necessary action, he had approached
this Court by filing contempt petition under the provisions of Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 (for short “Act, 1971); and that the said contempt petition came to be
numbered as Cont.Petn.No.871 of 2021.
9. The petitioner contended that the when aforesaid contempt petition
was listed for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the respondent submitted to the Court that the order in WP.No.6172 of
2011 has been complied with and produced the copy of the GO.(Ms).No.186,
Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (G1) Department dated 02.12.2022;
and that the Court noting the aforesaid G.O. and the submissions made by the
learned Special Government Pleader, closed the contempt petition on 13.12.2022.
4/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
10. The petitioner contended that though the respondents through the
Special Government Pleader had informed the Court during hearing of the
Contempt Petition of the respondent having complied with the order in the writ
petition by issuing GO.No.186 dated 02.12.2022, a perusal of the aforesaid GO
revealed that the respondent has not complied with the order in WP.No.6172 of
2011 in its entirety. As the respondent have only granted him monetary benefit on
account of setting aside the GO impugned in the writ petition, but not the attendant
benefits like the promotion to which he was entitled to while in service, and denied
on account of initiation of proceedings by the respondent, which were ultimately
quashed by this Court, there has been non compliance with the order of this Court.
11. The petitioner contended that since, the proceedings by which the
respondent had initiated disciplinary action was set aside by this Court, it is
incumbent on the part of the respondent to grant notional promotion to the post on
the date when his immediate junior was promoted; that as the respondents did not
grant the said benefit while issuing the GO., the contempt petition filed by him is
required to be reopened, in order to proceed against the respondent under the Act,
1971.
5/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
12. Contending as above, on behalf of the petitioner reliance is placed on
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and
others V. K.V.Jankiraman and others – 1991 (4) SCC 109.
13. The respondent had filed first counter affidavit affirmed on
12.03.2024, additional counter affidavit affirmed on 12.04.2024 and another
additional counter affidavit on 25.09.2024.
14. The respondent by the counter affidavit mainly contended that the
order of this Court in WP.No.6172 of 2011 was complied with by the respondent
by issuing GO.(Ms).No.186, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (G1)
Department dated 02.12.2022.
15. The respondent by the counter affidavit further contended that
though the petitioner by his representation dated 19.12.2022 sought for grant of
notional promotion as Deputy Director of Sericulture w.e.f. 24.07.1979 and Joint
6/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
Director of Sericulture w.e.f. 02.03.1988 and as Additional Director of Sericulture
from 02.11.1996 on par with his immediate juniors along with monetary benefits
and pensionary benefits, the said representation of the petitioner could not be
complied with, and the reasons for non compliance has been communicated to the
petitioner vide Government Letter No.3784053/G1/2022-5 dated 22.01.2024.
16. The respondent by the third counter affidavit further contended that
the petitioner was excluded in the temporary panel for promotion to the post of
Deputy Director of Sericulture issued vide GO.Ms.No.217 dated 27.02.1979, as a
detailed enquiry report was received from the Department of Vigilance and Anti
Corruption; that the same was under examination by the Government; and that the
petitioner was imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment for six months
with cumulative effect vide GO.Ms.No.985 Industries Department dated
24.08.1984.
17. The respondents contended that on completion of currency of the
punishment, the name of the petitioner was included in the panel for the post of
Deputy Director of Sericulture for the year 1985-1986 and the petitioner was
promoted to the post of Deputy Director of Sericulture on 17.01.1986; and that the
petitioner did not seek to challenge the punishment awarded to him and thus, the
7/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
punishment has become absolute.
18. The respondent further contended that based on the order of this
Court dated 27.02.2000 in WP.No.6172 of 2001, as affirmed in WA.No.1342 of
2021, the Government had cancelled the punishment imposed vide GO.(2D).No.5
dated 30.03.2010 and GO.No.160 dated 24.11.2010 and regularised the period of
suspension from 05.05.1986 to 30.06.1992 as on duty and issued GO.105 dated
19.07.2024 regularising his service in the post of Deputy Director of Sericulture
w.e.f. 17.01.1986.
19. The respondent further contended that the respondent on regularising
the petitioner’s service included his name at Sl.No.6A in the seniority list for the
post of Deputy Director of Sericulture above his junior namely S.Mohammed Ali
and below his senior H.Hariharasubramaniam who is at Sl.No.6, in the post of
Deputy Director of Sericulture.
20. The respondent further contended that serious charges were framed
against the petitioner while working as Deputy Director of Sericulture and
pending issuance of final orders on the disciplinary proceedings his service in the
8/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
said post of Deputy Director of Sericulture was not regularised; that insofar his
inclusion of petitioner’s name in the panel of promotion to the post of Deputy
Director of Sericulture for the yer 1979 was concerned, the petitioner name could
not be included above S.Mohammed Ali due to awarding and currency of
punishment of stoppage of increment for six months with cumulative effect vide
GO.985 dated 24.08.1984; thus, the petitioner become junior to the above said
officer in the post of Deputy Director of Sericulture and is not entitled to claim
notional promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Sericulture, Joint Director of
Sericulture and Additional Director of Sericulture on par with Mohideen Basha or
any other officials mentioned.
21. On the respondent filing the counter affidavit, the petitioner had filed
separate rejoinder affidavits on 25.03.2024, 17.07.2025 and 28.04.2026.
22. The petitioner in the rejoinder dated 28.04.2026 claimed that he
should be promoted to the post of Joint Director w.e.f. the date of his Junior
S.Nagasubramanian was promoted to the said post with all consequential service
9/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
benefits like fixation of pay, arrears of salary, arrears of leave salary, arrears of
pension, arrears of DCRG, until the monetary and attendant benefits are fully
extended, the respondents continues to be in contempt of order of this Court.
23. I have taken note of the respective contentions and the stand taken by
them in their respective affidavits.
24. The genesis of the present dispute stems from the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner in GO.(2D).No.1 dated 19.12.1996 which was
subject matter of OA.No.2154 of 1996 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal. The petitioner on being issued with charge memo dated 31.03.1986
under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
1955 in short “Appeal Rules 1955”, submitted his explanation which was followed
by an enquiry wherein the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of 10 out of
11 charges upon which the Government passed GO.(2D).No.1 dated 19.12.1996
imposing two penalties (i)recovery of sum of Rs.31,894.95 in 25 installments and
(ii)stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect.
10/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
25. The challenge to the said proceedings by the petitioner before the
Administrative Tribunal was made over to this Court on abolition of the Tribunal
and numbered as WP.No.13290 of 2006 and this Court by its order dated
11.12.2006 having found that the said order by which the petitioner is visited with
punishment suffers from non application of mind, had set aside the said
proceedings and remitted the matter back to the 1 st respondent therein for
reconsideration in accordance with law.
26. It is important to note that this Court while remitting the matter to the
1st respondent for denovo consideration took note of the fact that the petitioner had
retired about 6 years back and thus, directed the respondents to complete the
exercise of reconsideration within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of or production of the copy of this order.
27. It is important to note that the petitioner while filing the OA before
the Tribunal initially while in service which stood transferred to the High Court
subsequently sought for the relief of quashing the GO by which he was visited with
punishment / penalty and also sought for further direction to the respondents to
11/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
sanction increments to the petitioner with all consequential benefits, such as
promotion to the cadre of Additional Director of Sericulture which has been with
held on account of the impugned punishment and disbursement of arrears of salary
and other allowances.
28. The petitioner in the O.A. filed by him converted into writ petition in
WP.No.13290 of 2006 described himself as Deputy Director of Sericulture. Thus,
on the date when the petitioner filed OA before the Administrative Tribunal, he
was holding the post of Deputy Director of Sericulture to which post he was
promoted on 17.01.1986. However, it is not shown to this Court of any
proceedings pending before any forum with regard to the petitioner not being
granted promotion to the post of Deputy Director in the panel year of 1979, as
claimed by him in the representation submitted to the respondents on 19.12.2022.
Thus, the petitioner for the first time raised his claim relating to promotion to the
post of Deputy Director of Sericulture in the year 1979, only in the year 2022 (i.e)
after 23 years after his retirement. The petitioner also did not raise any objections
for not being granted promotion to the post of Deputy Director in the year 1979,
and instead being included in the panel of 1984-1985. Infact the petitioner on
12/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
being granted such promotion during 1986 he had joined in the promoted post on
17.01.1986. Thus, the petitioner in 2022 seeks to put the clock back by more than
four decades.
29. On this Court in WP.No.13290 of 2006 setting aside the punishment
order awarded to the petitioner in GO.(2D).No.1 dated 19.12.1996 in relation to
disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner, which is different from the
punishment of stoppage of increment for six months with cumulative effect
awarded under GO.985 dated 24.08.1984, and the respondent passing the order
dated 30.03.2010 in GO.(2D)No.5 and GO.No.160 dated 24.11.2010, the
petitioner once again approached this Court by filing WP.No.6172 of 2011. This
time, the petitioner who by then having already retired from service in the year
1999-2000 did not seek for the relief of any promotion to the next post, and had
sought for an altered relief in addition to quashing of the aforesaid GO’s, to direct
the respondents to disburse the amount with held through the impugned order as
well as increment which was with held on account of the penalty imposed prior to
remand and further direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension from
06.03.1986 to 30.06.1992 as duty for all purposes and consequently direct to
13/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
disburse all the arrears, accrued on the above head together with compensation for
the mental agony caused to the petitioner for over the period of 25 years.
30. Thus, in this writ petition the petitioner had given up his claim for
promotion as sought for by him in the earlier round of litigation i.e., OA converted
into writ petition.
31. It is also interesting to note that in the interregnum during the year
2006-2011, the petitioner had approached this Court once again by filing the writ
petition in WP.No.19552 of 2008 wherein he had sought for quashing of all the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 31.03.1986 and GO.(2D).NO.33 dated
20.06.2008. The petitioner in the said writ petition in addition to seeking quashing
of the said proceedings had sought to forbear the respondents in any manner
proceeding further with the enquiry against him.
32. Thus, the prayer in the two writ petitions filed in 2008 and 2011 are
varying with original prayer sought for by the petitioner in OA filed by him in the
year 1996. The petitioner in the two subsequent writ petitions filed by him had
given up his claim in relation to promotion, being aware of the fact that he had
retired from service in the year 1999.
14/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
33. The writ petition filed by the petitioner vide WP.No.6172 of 2011
assailing the proceedings dated 30.03.2010 and 24.11.2010 was disposed of by this
Court on 27.02.2020, by setting aside the said proceedings had held that the
petitioner is entitled to all the monetary and attendant benefits.
34. It is on the basis of this relief granted by this Court, the petitioner is
seeking for being granted promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Sericulture
w.e.f. 24.07.1979 and Joint Director of Sericulture w.e.f. 02.03.1988 and
Additional Director of Sericulture from 02.11.1996, as claimed by him in his
representation dated 19.12.2022.
35. However, as noted herein above, firstly, the petitioner was
overlooked in the year 1979, when promotion to the post of Deputy Director was
affected, on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him, which
ultimately resulted in the petitioner being awarded punishment of stoppage of
increment with six months with cumulative effect vide GO.Ms.No.985 Industries
Department dated 24.08.1984.
15/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
36. As noted herein above, in the absence any challenge to the said
disciplinary action, the petitioner in seeking to take advantage of the order of this
Court which only dealt with subsequent disciplinary proceedings, and being set-
aside. Thus, the petitioner under the guise of the said order cannot claim all the
earlier proceedings being set aside at naught which proceedings attained finality,
much earlier to the initiation of subsequent disciplinary proceedings, and which
were never the subject matter of consideration in the writ petition. For that matter
in none of the three writ petitions filed by the petitioner, the proceedings relating to
the petitioner not being granted promotion in the year 1979 was subject matter of
consideration and thus, the claim made by the petitioner in the year December
2022 under the guise of the order of this Court in WP.No.6172 of 2011 is clearly a
mischievous and misadventurous act and required to be deprecated.
37. Insofar as the direction contained in the order of this Court in
WP.No.6172 of 2011, to grant all attendant and monetary benefits is concerned,
the term “attendant benefit” cannot be looked in isolation so as to be construed as
something in relation to the post. The term “attendant” would get colour from the
16/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
word “monetary” with which it keeps company, by applying the Principle of
noscitur sociis. [See – Godfrey Phillips India Ltd and another V. State of U.P.
and others – 2005 (2) SCC 515]
38. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.V.G.Reddy V. APSRTC,
Nizamabad Region and another – 2009 (2) SCC 668 had considered the word
term “attendant benefit” in juxtaposition to the term “attributable” and held it to be
only to claim the benefit of increment notionally. If only the Court while disposing
the writ petition in WP.No.6172 of 2011 had held that the petitioner is entitled to
“consequential benefits” the petitioner can claim notional promotion, if otherwise
eligible. Thus, the term “attendant benefit” cannot be equated to “consequential
benefits” as both the terms operate in different spheres.
39. The position of law as stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court is applied to
the facts of the present case the claim of the petitioner of the attendant benefit to
include notional promotion to the next post i.e., Joint Director or Additional
Director, when his junior Mohideen Basha was promoted or the amended claim by
him in the additional rejoinder affidavit filed on 28.04.2026, seeking parity with
Nagasubramaniam cannot be considered as flowing from the order of this Court
17/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
dated 27.02.2020 in WP.No.6172 of 2011 qualifying as “attendant benefit”, for the
petitioner to seek reopening of the contempt petition closed by this Court on
13.12.2022 by the present sub application.
40. Further, the claim of the petitioner for being granted notional
promotion after passing of the order by this Court on 27.02.2020 also cannot be
considered on account of the fact that the petitioner had retired from service in the
year 1999. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of West Bengal
and others V. Dr.Amal Satpathi and others – 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, had
held that “promotion cannot be retrospectively granted after retirement, as it
requires the actual assumption of duties and responsibility of the promotional
post”.
41. Thus, the present sub application, the petitioner is not only seeking to
enlarge the scope of contempt petition by bringing under the ambit of the order, the
issue which are not covered as detailed herein above. The said action is also
contrary to Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and for the said reasons
also the sub application is not maintainable.
42. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the sub application
18/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
filed by the applicant seeking to reopen the closed contempt petition is devoid of
merits and is liable to be dismissed.
43. Accordingly, the sub application is dismissed. No costs.
44. Though, it is a fit case for imposing cost for wasting judicial time,
having regard to the fact that this Court in WP.No.13290 of 2006 speaking through
his Lordship Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian (as his Lordship then was) in
the year 2006 having noted the petitioner is aged about 66 years and with the
addition of another two decades being of 86years this Court is refraining itself
from imposing such cost on the applicant having regard to his age and being a
super senior citizen, however, not without being cautioned not to venture into such
adventurous acts.
10.07.2026
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
tsh
To
19/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
Thiru.Shambhu Kallolikar
Principal Secretary
Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and
Khadi Department
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
20/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
tsh
Pre-delivery order made in
Sub.Appln.No.909 of 2023
in Cont.P.No.871 of 2021
10.07.2026
21/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
