Dr.D.Paul Grace v. E.Sundaravalli

ORDER The petitioner, a retired employee, with a grievance that the undisputed retirement benefits were not settled to her, had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.8379 of 2025. This Court, by its order dated 26.03.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.8379 of 2025, has disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2025 and disburse the undisputed monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶2The petitioner, with a grievance that the order of this Court dated 26.03.2025 passed in W.P.(MD)No.8379 of 2025, has not been complied with, has filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.(MD)No.2265 of 2025. This Court, by order dated 06.02.2026, closed the contempt petition by recording the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the undisputed amount has already been settled to the petitioner and in this regard, a Government Order has also been passed in G.O.(D)Ms.No.26, Higher Education (F1) Department, dated 03.02.2026.

¶3Now, the petitioner, with a grievance that even the eligible amount has not been settled to her, as per the earlier of this Court, has filed this petition to re-open the contempt petition which was closed on

06.02.2026.

¶4This Court considered the rival submissions made.

¶5This Court, while disposing of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No. 8379 of 2025, on 26.03.2025, passed an order as under: "6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the representation dated 07.02.2025 of the petitioner and disburse the undisputed monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

¶6The respondent has disputed certain amount due to the petitioner and that needs to be clarified by the Department by way of a proceeding, so that, the petitioner can workout her remedy in the manner known to law.

¶7Considering the nature of order passed by this Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain this sub application to re-open the contempt petition. Accordingly, this petition is closed. However, the respondent is directed to pass a fresh order on the eligibility of this petitioner for the retirement benefits and the dispute, if any, with regard to certain amount and the reasons for denying certain amount to the petitioner. In the event, if certain amount has been denied to the petitioner, then, it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the order in the manner known to law. The respondent is expected to act in accordance with law. In the event, if the respondent has taken advantage of the earlier order and denied certain benefits, which are legally eligible to the petitioner, then the respondent has to face the consequences.

25.03.2026 ogy Index : Yes / No. Internet: Yes / No. NCC : Yes / No. To Tmt.E.Sundaravalli, The Commissioner of Collegiate Education College Road, Chennai – 600 006. SuboApplicationo(MD)No.o99oofo2026 inoCont.P.(MD)No.2265oofo2025 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooB.PUGALENDHI,oJ. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooogy ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooSuboApplicationo(MD)No.o99oofo2026 in Cont.P.(MD)No.2265oofo2025 oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo25.03.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 25.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI in Cont.P.(MD)No.2265 of 2025 Dr.D.Paul Grace ... Petitioner Vs. Tmt.E.Sundaravalli, The Commissioner of Collegiate Education College Road, Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondent This sub application filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. to reopen the contempt petition (MD)No.2265 of 2025. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.Amjadkhan, Government Advocate