B.Sasikala Devi v. Dr.P.Senthilkumar, Ias and 2 Others

ORDER This Contempt Application is filed to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 06.09.2019 in W.P.No.6911 of 2010.

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the records.

¶3A co-ordinate bench of this Court while disposing of the aforesaid W.P.No.6911 of 2010, directed as under:- "9.It is submitted that due to the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has not got any pensionary benefits. The respondent shall calculate the pensionary benefits as if she remained as Nursing Superintendent Grade III and disburse the same to the petitioner forthwith within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order."

¶4Though on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that despite this Court directing the respondents to disburse the monetary benefits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the respondents did not comply with the order.

¶5The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the petitioner following up the matter with the respondents, the respondents kept the issue pending and as such, the petitioner was constrained to file the present contempt case on 18.12.2025.

¶6I have taken note of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶7At the outset, it is to be noted that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prescribes the limitation period of one year for initiating contempt proceedings.

¶8This Court by order dated 01.06.2023 in Cont.P.Nos.2599 & 3033 of 2025 and Cont.P.No.2706 of 2025 had considered the scope of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, and also as to what would constitute continuing cause of action.

¶9This Court having regard to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, being a specific provision, the contempt petitions have to be filed within one year when the cause of action arises.

¶10In the facts of the present case, the cause of action for the petitioner to initiate contempt action against the respondents arose on expiry of four weeks time granted by this Court from the date of receipt of a copy of the order dated

06.09.2019. The petitioner not only did not take any action thereafter within time prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, on the other hand had approached this Court by filing the present contempt case nearly six years later.

¶11Having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also of this Court, this Court is of the view, that the present contempt petition cannot be entertained.

¶12Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 27-03-2026 vum Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To

1.Dr.P.Senthilkumar, IAS Add. Chief Secretary To Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Health And Family Welfare Department, Chennai

2.Dr.D.K.Chitra Director of Medical And Rural Health Services, DMS Compound, Chennai-6

3.Suresh Kumar, Hospital Superintendent, Government District Headquarters Hospital, Mannargudi 614 001, Tiruvarur Dist. T.VINOD KUMAR J. vum

27-03-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR B.Sasikala Devi Petitioner Vs 1. Dr.P.Senthilkumar, IAS Add. Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Health And Family Welfare Department, Chennai. 2.Dr.D.K.Chitra Director of Medical And Rural Health Services, DMS Compound, Chennai-6 3.Suresh Kumar, Hospital Superintendent, Government District Headquarters Hospital, Mannargudi 614 001, Tiruvarur Dist. Contemnors PRAYER Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 06.09.2019 in W.P.No.6911 of 2010. For Petitioner: Ms.R.Abirami For Respondents: Mr.E.Sundaram, Government Advocate