Cont.P.(MD)No.932 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR Cont.P.(MD)No.932 of 2026 S.Kandasamy ...Petitioner vs. 1.Saravanan, The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Madurai. 2.Gopalakrishnan The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Virudhunagar Region, Virudhunagar. ...Respondents Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors / respondents and punish them for their wilful disobedience of the order of the Court in W.P.(MD)No.34217 of 2025, dated 26.11.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.S.Ramachandrapratheep 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.(MD)No.932 of 2026 ORDER This Contempt Petition has been filed against the violation of the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.34217 of 2025, dated 26.11.2025, whereby, this Court directed the respondents to refer the petitioner to the Medical Board of the Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai, and to act upon the report of the Medical Board for providing alternate employment to the petitioner and further directed the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner till the report is received from the Medical Board. 2. Though on an earlier occasion, it was reported that the respondents complied with the order, this Court was not satisfied with the said submission. Hence, this Court directed this matter to be listed on 01.06.2026 for reporting compliance. Accordingly, the matter was listed on 01.06.2026 and it stood adjourned to today i.e., 02.06.2026. 3. When the matter is taken up today, it was brought to the notice of this Court that an alternate employment was provided to the petitioner through proceedings of the second respondent in Virudhu/Nir/A2/ 505-8/2026, dated 26.05.2026 and it is also brought to the notice that the petitioner has joined in the alternate post and is working as an Attendance Clerk. Further, the salary as directed is also paid to the petitioner. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.(MD)No.932 of 2026 4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the salary that was paid to the petitioner is by deducting Earned Leave that is available to the credit of the petitioner and therefore, the same cannot be said to be in compliance of the order passed by the Court. 5. Subsequent claim or prayer cannot be gone into in the contempt proceedings as admittedly, the respondent have paid salary to the petitioner. In case, the Earned Leave that is available to the credit of the petitioner is deducted erroneously or otherwise, it is always open to the petitioner to agitate the same independently. 6. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in once again referring the petitioner to the Medical Board at Chennai through proceedings in Virudhu/Nir/A2/ 505-7/2026, dated 08.05.2026, also amounts to contempt of Court is concerned, this Court is unable to accept the same. All the directions issued by this Court in paragraph no.4 of the order in W.P.(MD)No.34217 of 2025, dated 26.11.2025 have been complied with by the respondents. Therefore, this Court does not intend to proceed further against the respondents in the present contempt proceedings. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is closed. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.(MD)No.932 of 2026 7. However, it is left open to the petitioner to agitate the grievance, if any, on further referring him to the Medical Board at Chennai. Then coming to the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that once the Contempt Petition is closed, the respondents would discontinue the employment of the petitioner on the premise of referring the petitioner to the Medical Board is concerned, this Court does not see any force in the said apprehension. The respondents having issued proceedings dated 26.05.2026 providing alternate employment to the petitioner, are not entitled to discontinue his employment on any premise, unless the petitioner is found fit to continue as a Driver. In case, if any such discontinuance of employment takes place, merely on the ground of closure of this Contempt Petition, it is always open to the petitioner to re-open this Contempt Petition. 02.06.2026 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No mbi 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.(MD)No.932 of 2026 MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR , J. mbi Cont.P.(MD)No.932 of 2026 02.06.2026 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis