IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.272-273 OF 2016 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 339 & 340 OF 2013 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8468 OF 2003 C. CHAKKRAVARTHY AND ORS ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THIRU. MANOJ PARIDA, I.A.S. CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 339 OF 2013 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8468 OF 2003 O R D E R Heard. We are of the view that since main matter has already been decided by this Court any surviving dispute between the parties can be gone into in appropriate proceedings before any appropriate forum. There is, thus, no ground to continue these contempt proceedings and interlocutory applications. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings and interlocutory applications are closed. …....................J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] NEW DELHI …...................J. 16TH JANUARY, 2017 [UDAY UMESH LALIT]
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.11 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 272-273/2016 In CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339 & 340/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 C. CHAKKRAVARTHY AND ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS THIRU. MANOJ PARIDA, I.A.S. CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORSRespondent(s) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 (With for c/delay and appln.(s) for appeal against registrar's order and appln.(s) for appeal against registrar's order and appln. (s) for c/delay and Office Report) Date : 16/01/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishvanathan,Sr.Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. Mrs. V.S. Laxmi,Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. Mr. C. Rubanath,Adv. Mr. P. Rajaram,Adv. Mr. V. Senthil Kumar,Adv. For Respondent(s) MR. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. R.Venkatramani,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. Prabhu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mrs. Neelam Singh,Adv. Mr. Sameer Singh,Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela,Adv. Mr. C.U. Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Nidesh Gupta,Sr.Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Sr.,Adv. Mr. Shiva Vijaya Kumar,Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv.
Mr. M.A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Delay condoned. The contempt proceedings and interlocutory applications are closed. (Madhu Bala) (Suman Jain) Court Master Court Master (Signed order is placed on the file)
LISTED ON:16.01.2017 COURT NO.: 11 ITEM NO.: 02 SECTION XII IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 272-273 OF 2016 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 339 & 340 OF 2013 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8468 OF 2003 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 5-6 AND 7-8 (Applications for Appeal against Registrar's order dated 9/1/2016 in Interlocutory Application D. No. 93283/2015 and 91818 of 2015) IN Contempt Petition(C) Nos. 339 & 340 of 2013 AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 1-2 (Applications for intervention to intervene in Contempt Petition Nos. 272-273 of 2016 filed by Mr. G. Balaji, Advocate) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 3-4 (Applications for intervention to intervene in Contempt Petition Nos. 272-273 of 2016 filed by Mr. S. Thananjayan, Advocate) C. Chakkarvarthy & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Manoj Parida, I. A. S. & Ors. ...Alleged Contemnors OFFICE REPORT The Contempt Petition Nos. 272-273 of 2016 in Contempt Petition Nos. 339 & 340 of 2013 in the matters above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 9 th May, 2016, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “Mr. V.Giri, learned senior counsel who appears on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry-respondent No.1 submits that the State Government is in the process of implementing the directions issued by this Court in letter and spirit. He submits that two DPC meetings have already been conducted in this regard. He seeks some time to file an affidavit tothat effect. List after summer vacations. Needful be done in the meantime.” ...2/-
-2- It is further submitted that Mr. G. Balaji, Advocate has on 18 th November, 2015 and Mr. S. Thananajayan, Advocate for the proposed intervenor in Contempt Petition has on 24 th November, 2015 filed applications for modification in Contempt Petition(C) No. 339 of 2013 of the Order of this Hon'ble Court's Order dated 16.10.2015 passed in Contempt Petition(C) Nos. 339 and 340 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2003, but both the applications for the modification were refused to receive vide Ld. Registrar's Order dated 9.1.2016 (Copy enclosed). It is further submitted that Interlocutory Application Nos. 5-6 and 7-8, Applications for Appeal against Registrar's order dated 9/1/2016 in Interlocutory Application D. No. 93283/2015 and 91818 of 2015 in Contempt Petition(C) Nos. 339 & 340 of 2013 were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 10 th May, 2016, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “Post along Contempt Petition © Nos. 272-273 of 2016 and 339 & 340 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2003 after ensuing summer vacation.” It is further submmited that Mr. S. Thananjayan, Advocate has on 12 th May, 2016 filed Application to intervene in Contempt Petition No. 272-273 of 2016 which has been registered as Intelocutory Application Nos. 3-4. It is further submmited that Mr. G. Balaji, Advocate has on 17 th June, 2016 filed Application to intervene in Contempt Petition No. 272-273 of 2016 which has been registered as Intelocutory Application Nos. 1-2. It is submitted that in compliance to the order quoted above, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate has on 30 th June, 2016 filed reply affidavit on behalf of all the Alleged Contemnors but he has filed Vakalatnama and appearance only on behalf of Alleged Contemnor Nos. 1 and 3. Copy of the same Copies of the same has already been included in the paper books. ...3/-
-3- Thereafter, the matters above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 5 th July, 2016, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel, submits that while the petitioners in the contempt petition and a large number of others similarly situate have been promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Engineers and further to the post of Executive Engineers in terms of several promotion orders issued by the Government, no posting orders have been issued in their favour so far. This according to learned counsel renders promotion orders, issued to the petitioners and others, meaningless. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the State Government, however, submits that while the promotion orders have been issued and copies thereof placed on record, the the State Government would require four weeks' further time to issue requisite posting orders in favour of those promoted. These petitions shall therefore be adjourned to be posted again in the second week of August 2016. Needful shall be done in the meantime. M/s. Giri and Vishwanathan may in the meantime file their objections, if any, to all the pending applications also.” It is further submitted that Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Counsel for the Contemnor No. 1 has on 3 rd August, 2016 filed affidavit in Intelocutory Application Nos. 1-2 in Contempt Petition Nos. 272-273 of 2016. Copy of the same is included in the Intelocutory Applications paper books. It is submitted that in compliance to the order dated 5 th July, 2016, Mr.V.G. Pragasam, Counsel for the Contemnor No. 1 has on 3 rd August, 2016 filed affidavit in Contempt Petition Nos. 272-273 of 2016. Copy of the same is included in the Contempt Petition paper books. ...4/-
-4- It is further submitted that Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Counsel for the Contemnor No. 1 has on 3 rd August, 2016 filed affidavit in Intelocutory Application Nos. 3-4 in Contempt Petition Nos. 272-273 of 2016. Copy of the same is included in the Intelocutory Applications paper books. Subsequently, the matters were mentioned before the Hon'ble Court on 16 th December, 2016, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “The matter to retain its position.” It is lastly submitted that Mr. G. Balaji, Counsel for the Petitioner has on 10 th January, 2017 filed separate volume of Additional Affidavit in Interlocutory Application Nos. 1-2 in Contempt Petition Nos. 272-273 of 2016. The copy of the same is placed with Civil Appeal paper books. The Contempt Petitions alongwith applications above mentioned in the matter above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 14 th day of January, 2017. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. A. Venayagam Balan Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate Mr. G. Balaji, Advocate Mr. S. Thananjayan, Advocate Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR vk
¸IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.272-273 OF 2016 INCONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 339 & 340 OF 2013 INCIVIL APPEAL NO. 8468 OF 2003C. CHAKKRAVARTHY AND ORS ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUSTHIRU. MANOJ PARIDA, I.A.S. CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS ...RESPONDENT(S)WITHCONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 339 OF 2013 INCIVIL APPEAL NO. 8468 OF 2003O R D E RHeard.We are of the view that since main matter hasalready been decided by this Court any surviving disputebetween the parties can be gone into in appropriateproceedings before any appropriate forum. There is, thus, no ground to continue thesecontempt proceedings and interlocutory applications.Accordingly, the contempt proceedings and interlocutoryapplications are closed.⬠¦....................J.[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]NEW DELHI ⬠¦...................J.16TH JANUARY, 2017 [UDAY UMESH LALIT]ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.11 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCONMT.PET.(C) No. 272-273/2016 In CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339 & 340/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003C. CHAKKRAVARTHY AND ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSTHIRU. MANOJ PARIDA, I.A.S. CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORSRespondent(s)WITHCONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003(With for c/delay and appln.(s) for appeal against registrar'sorder and appln.(s) for appeal against registrar's order and appln.(s) for c/delay and Office Report) Date : 16/01/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALITFor Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishvanathan,Sr.Adv.Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv.Mrs. V.S. Laxmi,Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv.Mr. C. Rubanath,Adv.Mr. P. Rajaram,Adv.Mr. V. Senthil Kumar,Adv. For Respondent(s) MR. V. Giri,Sr.Adv.Mr. R.Venkatramani,Sr.Adv.Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.Mr. Prabhu Ramasubramanian,Adv.Mrs. Neelam Singh,Adv.Mr. Sameer Singh,Adv.Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela,Adv.Mr. C.U. Singh,Sr.Adv.Mr. Nidesh Gupta,Sr.Adv.Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Sr.,Adv.Mr. Shiva Vijaya Kumar,Adv.Mr. G. Balaji,Adv.
Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv.Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv.Mr. M.A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard.Delay condoned.The contempt proceedings and interlocutoryapplications are closed. (Madhu Bala) (Suman Jain) Court Master Court Master(Signed order is placed on the file)
ITEM NO.805 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 in C.A. No. 8468 of 2003 C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) with Contempt petition No. 272-273 of 2013 Date : 16/12/2016 This petition was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R The matter to retain its position. (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master (The matter is shown in the Advance List for 16.01.2017)
ÀITEM NO.805 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 in C.A. No. 8468 of 2003C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s)with Contempt petition No. 272-273 of 2013Date : 16/12/2016 This petition was mentioned today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUDFor Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R The matter to retain its position.(Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master(The matter is shown in the Advance List for 16.01.2017)
LISTED ON:5.7.2016 COURT NO.: 01 ITEM NO.: 22 [ SECTION XII IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 272-273 OF 2016 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 339 & 340 OF 2013 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8468 OF 2003 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 5-6 AND 7-8 (Applications for Appeal against Registrar's order dated 9/1/2016 in Interlocutory Application D. No. 93283/2015 and 91818 of 2015) IN Contempt Petition(C) Nos. 339 & 340 of 2013 AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 1-2 AND 3-4 (Applications for intervention to intervene in Contempt Petition Nos. 272-273 of 2016 ) C. Chakkarvarthy & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Manoj Parida, I. A. S. & Ors. ...Respondents OFFICE REPORT The matters above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 9 th May, 2016, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “Mr. V.Giri, learned senior counsel who appears on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry-respondent No.1 submits that the State Government is in the process of implementing the directions issued by this Court in letter and spirit. He submits that two DPC meetings have already been conducted in this regard. He seeks some time to file an affidavit tothat effect. List after summer vacations. Needful be done in the meantime.” It is submitted that in compliance to the order quoted above, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate has on 30 th June, 2016 filed reply affidavit on behalf of all the Alleged Contemnors and he has filed Vakalatnama and appearance on behalf of Alleged Contemnor Nos. 1 and 3 only. Copy of the same is circualted with this office report. ...2/-
-2- It is further submitted that Mr. G.Balaji and Mr. S. Thananjayan, Advocates have on 17 th June, 2016 and 12 th May, 2016 respectively filed applications for intervention to intervene in Contempt Petition Nos. 272-273 of 2016, which have been registered as Interlocutory Applicaiton Nos. 1-2 and 3-4 respectively in Contempt Petition Nos. 272-273 of 2016. Copies of the same are circualted with this office report. It is lastly submitted that Interlocutory Application Nos. 5-6 and 7-8, Applications for Appeal against Registrar's order dated 9/1/2016 in Interlocutory Application D. No. 93283/2015 and 91818 of 2015 in Contempt Petition(C) Nos. 339 & 340 of 2013 were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 10 th May, 2016, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “Post along Contempt Petition © Nos. 272-273 of 2016 and 339 & 340 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2003 after ensuing summer vacation.” The Contempt Petitions alongwith applications above mentioned in the matter above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 4 th day of July, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. A. Venayagam Balan Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate Mr. G. Balaji, Advocate Mr. S. Thananjayan, Advocate Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR vk
1 ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Contempt Petiton (C) No(s).272-273 of 2016 in CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) With I.A.Nos.1-2 & 3-4 – (Appln. For intervention & office report) WITH I.A.Nos.5, 6, 7 & 8 of 2016 in Conmt. Pet.(C) No.339 of 2013 in C.A. NO.8468 of 2003 (For appeal against ld. registrar's order dated 9.1.2016 in I.A.no. D93283/2015 and c/delay in filing appeal against ld. registrar's order and appeal against ld. registrar's order dated 9.1.2016 in I.A. NO.D91818/2015) Date : 05/07/2016 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan,Sr.Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. Ms. V.S. Lakshmi,Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. R. Venkatramani,Sr.Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Ms. Neelam Singh,Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela,Adv. Mr. Nidesh Gupta,Sr.Adv. Mr. Shiva Vijaya Kumar,Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. Mr. C.U.Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Shiva Vijaya Kumar,Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. Mr. M.N. Rao,Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv.
2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel, submits that while the petitioners in the contempt petition and a large number of others similarly situate have been promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Engineers and further to the post of Executive Engineers in terms of several promotion orders issued by the Government, no posting orders have been issued in their favour so far. This according to learned counsel renders promotion orders, issued to the petitioners and others, meaningless. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the State Government, however, submits that while the promotion orders have been issued and copies thereof placed on record, the the State Government would require four weeks' further time to issue requisite posting orders in favour of those promoted. These petitions shall therefore be adjourned to be posted again in the second week of August 2016. Needful shall be done in the meantime. M/s. Giri and Vishwanathan may in the meantime file their objections, if any, to all the pending applications also. (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
\2301ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSContempt Petiton (C) No(s).272-273 of 2016in CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s)With I.A.Nos.1-2 & 3-4 ⬠(Appln. For intervention & office report)WITH I.A.Nos.5, 6, 7 & 8 of 2016 in Conmt. Pet.(C) No.339 of 2013in C.A. NO.8468 of 2003(For appeal against ld. registrar's order dated 9.1.2016 in I.A.no.D93283/2015 and c/delay in filing appeal against ld. registrar'sorder and appeal against ld. registrar's order dated 9.1.2016 inI.A. NO.D91818/2015)Date : 05/07/2016 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUDFor Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan,Sr.Adv.Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv.Ms. V.S. Lakshmi,Adv.Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv.Mr. R. Venkatramani,Sr.Adv.Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv.Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.Ms. Neelam Singh,Adv.Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela,Adv. Mr. Nidesh Gupta,Sr.Adv.Mr. Shiva Vijaya Kumar,Adv.Mr. G. Balaji,Adv.Mr. C.U.Singh,Sr.Adv.Mr. Shiva Vijaya Kumar,Adv.Mr. G. Balaji,Adv.Mr. M.N. Rao,Sr.Adv.Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv.Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv.Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv.2UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RMr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel, submitsthat while the petitioners in the contempt petition and a largenumber of others similarly situate have been promoted to thenext higher post of Assistant Engineers and further to the postof Executive Engineers in terms of several promotion ordersissued by the Government, no posting orders have been issued intheir favour so far. This according to learned counsel renderspromotion orders, issued to the petitioners and others,meaningless.Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for theState Government, however, submits that while the promotionorders have been issued and copies thereof placed on record,the the State Government would require four weeks' further timeto issue requisite posting orders in favour of those promoted.These petitions shall therefore be adjourned to be postedagain in the second week of August 2016. Needful shall be donein the meantime.M/s. Giri and Vishwanathan may in the meantime file theirobjections, if any, to all the pending applications also.(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
1 ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NOS. 5, 6, 7 & 8/2016 in CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) (For appeal against ld. registrar's order dated 09.01.2016 in I.A. No. D93283/2015 and appln. for c/delay in filing appeal against ld. registrar's order and appeal against ld. registrar's order dated 09.01.2016 in I.A.No.D91818/2015 and office report) Date : 10/05/2016 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V.Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. MS. V.S.Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. I.A. 5-6 Mr. M.N.Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. MS. Promila, Adv. Mr. K.V.Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. Mr. P.Raja Ram, Adv. Mr. C.Rubavarthy, Adv. Mr. V.Senthil Kumar, Adv. I.A. No. 7-8 Mr. Nidesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. Mr.Shiva Vijaya Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V.Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G.Pragasam, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv.
2 Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Post along Contempt Petition © Nos. 272-273 of 2016 and 339 & 340 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2003 after ensuing summer vacation. (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master
N 1 ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NOS. 5, 6, 7 & 8/2016 in CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) (For appeal against ld. registrar's order dated 09.01.2016 in I.A. No. D93283/2015 and appln. for c/delay in filing appeal against ld. registrar's order and appeal against ld. registrar's order dated 09.01.2016 in I.A.No.D91818/2015 and office report) Date : 10/05/2016 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V.Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. MS. V.S.Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. I.A. 5-6 Mr. M.N.Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. MS. Promila, Adv. Mr. K.V.Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. Mr. P.Raja Ram, Adv. Mr. C.Rubavarthy, Adv. Mr. V.Senthil Kumar, Adv. I.A. No. 7-8 Mr. Nidesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. Mr.Shiva Vijaya Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V.Giri, Sr. Adv.Signature Not Verified Mr. V.G.Pragasam, Adv.Digitally signed bySHASHI SAREENDate: 2016.05.13 Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv.14:42:11 ISTReason: Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. 2 Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Post along Contempt Petition ) Nos. 272-273 of 2016 and339 & 340 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2003 after ensuingsummer vacation.(Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master
1 ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 272-273/2016 In CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339 & 340/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 No(s). C. CHAKKRAVARTHY AND ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS THIRU. MANOJ PARIDA, I.A.S. CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With office report) Date : 09/05/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.A. Chinaswamy, Adv. Mrs. V.S.Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Venkatramani, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mrs. Neelam Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. V.Giri, learned senior counsel who appears on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry-respondent No.1 submits that the State Government is in the process of implementing the directions issued by this Court in letter and spirit. He submits that two DPC meetings have already been conducted in this regard. He seeks some time to file an affidavit to that effect. List after summer vacations. Needful be done in the meantime. (Ashok Raj Singh) (Veena Khera) Court Master Court Master
LISTED ON:09.05.2016 COURT NO.: 01 ITEM NO.: 09 SECTION XII IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 272-273 OF 2016 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 339 & 340 OF 2013 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8468 OF 2003 C. Chakkarvarthy & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Manoj Parida, I. A. S. & Ors. ...Respondents OFFICE REPORT It is submitted that Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2003 was disposed of on 22 nd April, 2010 alongwith connected appeal. Thereafter, Contempt Petition(C) Nos. 339 and 340 of 2013 were filed for disobedience of the order mentioned above and the same were also disposed of on 16 th October, 2015. Copy of the order dated 22 nd April, 2010 and 16 th October, 2015 are already placed in the Paper books. It is further submitted that Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, Advocate has on 18 th March, 2016 filed Contempt Petition in Contempt Petition Civil Nos. 339 & 340 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2003, for wilful and delibrate disobediance of the alleged Contemnors in implementing the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 16 th October, 2015. The same has been registered as Contempt Petition No. 272-373 of 2016. The Contempt Petitions in the matter above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 29 th day of April, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. A. Venayagam Balan Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR vk
1 ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 272-273/2016 In CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339 & 340/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 No(s). C. CHAKKRAVARTHY AND ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS THIRU. MANOJ PARIDA, I.A.S. CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With office report) Date : 09/05/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.A. Chinaswamy, Adv. Mrs. V.S.Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Venkatramani, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mrs. Neelam Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. V.Giri, learned senior counsel who appears on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry-respondent No.1 submits that the State Government is in the process of implementing the directions issued by this Court in letter and spirit. He submits that two DPC meetings have already been conducted in this regard. He seeks some time to file an affidavit to that effect.Signature Not Verified List after summer vacations.Digitally signed byASHOK RAJ SINGHDate: 2016.05.1318:05:39 ISTReason: Needful be done in the meantime. (Ashok Raj Singh) (Veena Khera) Court Master Court Master
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NOS.5,6,7 & 8/2016 in CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 No(s). C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) (for appeal against registrar's order dated 9.1.2016 in I.A.D.No.93283/2015 and I.A. D.No. 91818/2015 and c/delay in filing appeal against Ld. registrar's order and office report) Date : 25/04/2016 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Not taken up. [VEENA KHERA] [ SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR] COURT MASTER A.R.-CUM-P.S.
` ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NOS.5,6,7 & 8/2016 in CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 No(s). C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) (for appeal against registrar's order dated 9.1.2016 in I.A.D.No.93283/2015 and I.A. D.No. 91818/2015 and c/delay in filing appeal against Ld. registrar's order and office report) Date : 25/04/2016 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySukhbir Paul KaurDate: 2016.04.27 Not taken up.13:06:49 ISTReason: [VEENA KHERA] [SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR] COURT MASTER A.R.-CUM-P.S.
ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. Nos. 5,6,7 and 8 of 2016 in CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) (with Appln. for appeal against registrar's order dated 9.1.2016 in I.A. D. No. 93283 of 2015 and 91818 of 2015 and c/delay in filing appeal against Ld. Registrar's order and office report) Date : 18/04/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V.Viswanathan, Sr. Adv. Ms. V.S.Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V.Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. R.Venkataramni, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. Mr. M.N.Rao, Sr. Adv. MS. Promila, Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of learned counsel for the parties, post on Monday i.e. 25.04.2016. (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master
lITEM NO.30 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A. Nos. 5,6,7 and 8 of 2016 in CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A.No. 8468/2003 C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s)(with Appln. for appeal against registrar's order dated 9.1.2016 inI.A. D. No. 93283 of 2015 and 91818 of 2015 and c/delay in filingappeal against Ld. Registrar's order and office report)Date : 18/04/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALITFor Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V.Viswanathan, Sr. Adv. Ms. V.S.Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V.Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. R.Venkataramni, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. Mr. M.N.Rao, Sr. Adv. MS. Promila, Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of learned counsel for the parties, poston Monday i.e. 25.04.2016.(Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 5/2016, I.A. 6/2016, I.A. 7/2016 & I.A. 8/2016 in CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) (For appeal against registrar's order dated 09.01.2016 in I.A.D.No.93283/2015 and I.A.D.No.91818/2015 and c/delay in filing appeal against ld. registrar's order and office report) Date: 13/04/2016 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan,Sr.Adv. Ms. V.S. Lakshmi,Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. For Applicant(s) Mr. M.N. Rao,Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. Mr. Chandra Udaya Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. Ms. Shiva Vijaya Kumar,Adv. Mr. Krishnanraj,Adv. Ms. S. Shantha Kumari,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan,Sr.Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. Mr. C. Rubavathi,Adv. Mr. V. Senthil Kumar,Adv. Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Post on Monday, the 18 th April, 2016. (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A. 5/2016, I.A. 6/2016, I.A. 7/2016 & I.A. 8/2016 in CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s)(For appeal against registrar's order dated 09.01.2016 inI.A.D.No.93283/2015 and I.A.D.No.91818/2015 and c/delay in filingappeal against ld. registrar's order and office report)Date: 13/04/2016 These applications were called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALITFor Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan,Sr.Adv.Ms. V.S. Lakshmi,Adv.Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv.For Applicant(s) Mr. M.N. Rao,Sr.Adv.Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv.Mr. Chandra Udaya Singh,Sr.Adv.Mr. G. Balaji,Adv.Ms. Shiva Vijaya Kumar,Adv.Mr. Krishnanraj,Adv.Ms. S. Shantha Kumari,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv.Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv.Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan,Sr.Adv.Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv.Mr. C. Rubavathi,Adv.Mr. V. Senthil Kumar,Adv.Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv.Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv.UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RPost on Monday, the 18 th April, 2016.(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.339 OF 2013 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8468 OF 2003 C. Chakkaravarthy and Ors. …Appellants Versus Tmt. M. Satyavathy, IAS and Ors. …Respondents/Contemnors WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (/CIVIL) NO.340 OF 2013 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8468 OF 2003 J. Lucien Pedro Kumar and Anr. …Appellants Versus Tmt. M. Satyavathy, IAS and Ors. …Respondents/Contemnors 1
J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. In this petition under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the petitioners allege deliberate violation by the respondents of the judgment and order dated 22 nd April, 2010 passed by this Court in N. Suresh Nathan and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2010) 5 SCC 692 . The question that fell for consideration therein was whether the practice adopted by the Government of Pondicherry of counting the service of Section Officers/Junior Engineers who have qualified as graduates while in service only from the date they passed the degree or equivalent examination for purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers under Rule 11(1) of the Government of Pondicherry Assistant Engineers (including Deputy Director of Public Works Department) Group ‘B’ (Technical) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1965 (for short ‘Recruitment Rules’) was legally sound. Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules provide for the method of 2
appointment as Assistant Engineer to be by ‘selection’ and reads as: “ 5. Whether Selection post or: Selection” Non-Selection Post: 2. Reference may also be made to Rule 11 of the said rules which is as under: “ 11 . In case of recruitment by promotion/deputatio n/transfer grades from which promotion/deputatio n/transfer to be made : Promotion 1. Section Officer possessing a recognised degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent with 3 years service in the grade failing which Section Officers holding diploma in Civil Engineering with 6 years service in the grade – 50%. 2. Section Officers possessing a recognised diploma in Civil Engineering with 6 years service in the grade – 50% ... ... ...” 3. This Court on a consideration of the rival submissions urged before it and the decisions of this Court relied upon by the parties in support of their respective submissions held that the practice adopted by the Government of Pondicherry 3
of placing the Junior Engineers qualified as graduates in the order of seniority according to the date on which they passed the degree examination was contrary to Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules. Having said that this Court held that the directions issued by the High Court directing that the entire service of a person should be counted for purposes of seniority and promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was also contrary to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules (supra). The following passage appearing in the judgment of this Court is, in this regard, apposite: “ 41. The practice adopted by the Government of Pondicherry in consultation with UPSC of counting the services of Section Officers or Junior Engineers, who qualified as graduates while in service from the date they passed the degree or equivalent examination and placing them in order of seniority accordingly for the purpose of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer under Clause 1 of Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules is contrary to Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules. Similarly, the direction of the High Court in the impugned judgment and order to count the entire service of a person concerned even before acquiring degree in Civil Engineering for the purpose of seniority and promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer under Clause 1 of Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules is contrary to Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules.” 4. This Court then proceeded to declare that recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers was by way of selection 4
meaning thereby that seniority in the cadre of Section Officers/Junior Engineers was not of much significance. Selection for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers was, declared this Court, to be made only on the basis of comparative merit of eligible candidates in which persons found most meritorious were to be selected for appointment. Such a method of selection would, according to this Court, not only be consistent with Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules but also satisfy the demands of equality of opportunity contained in Article 16 of the Constitution. This Court observed: “ 48. As we have seen, Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules in the present case states that the post of Assistant Engineer is a selection post and the Recruitment Rules nowhere provide that seniority-cum-merit would be the criteria for promotion. In the absence of any indication in the Recruitment Rules that seniority in the grade of Section Officers/Junior Engineers will be counted for the purpose of promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer, consideration of all Section Officers/Junior Engineers under Clause 1 of Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules who are eligible for such consideration has to be done on the basis of assessment of the comparative merit of the eligible candidates and the most suitable or meritorious candidate has to be selected for the post of Assistant Engineer. Such a method of selection will be consistent with Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules and Article 16 of the Constitution which guarantees to all citizens equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.” 5
5. Having said so, this Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and directed the Government of Pondicherry to consider the cases of Section Officer/Junior Engineer who have completed 3 years service in the grade of Section Officers/Junior Engineers for promotion to the vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineers, Public Works Department, Government of Pondicherry on the basis of their inter se merit. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court runs as under: “ 50. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and direct the Government of Pondicherry to consider the cases of all Section Officers or Junior Engineers, who have completed three years’ service in the grade of Section Officers or Junior Engineers, for promotion to the vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Pondicherry, in accordance with their merit. We make it clear that the promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer already made pursuant to the judgment and order of the High Court will not be disturbed until the exercise is carried out for promotion in accordance with merit as directed in this judgment and on completion of such exercise, formal orders of promotion to the vacancies in the posts of Assistant Engineer which arose during the pendency of the cases before this Court are passed in case of those who are selected for promotion and after such exercise only those who are not selected for promotion may be reverted to the post of Section Officer or Junior Engineer.” 6
6. Considering the fact that the number of candidates eligible for consideration will be large, this Court reserved liberty to the Government to issue executive instructions as to the method to be followed for consideration of such eligible candidates for promotion. This Court said: “ Where, therefore, there are a large number of eligible candidates available for consideration for promotion to a selection post, the Government can issue executive instructions consistent with the principle of merit on the method to be followed for considering such eligible candidates for promotion to the selection post.” 7. Pursuant to the liberty so reserved, the review DPC appears to have taken note of certain pre-existing Government of India Order dated 6 th January, 2006 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, for purposes of selecting suitable officers for promotion on the basis of ‘Merit’. The said order set out guidelines to be followed for restricting the field of selection to a manageable number of candidates in cases where the number of such candidates was large. The case of the respondent-State of Pondicherry is that the review DPC evolved a procedure keeping in mind the observations made by this Court as also the DoPT 7
guidelines referred to above for identifying the field of selection and applying the criteria for determination of inter se merit of the candidates. The procedure so evolved comprised six steps which the respondent-state has identified in the counter affidavit filed by it in the following words. “ A . Identify the available vacancies of Asst. Engineers for the relevant year. B . Make a list of eligible candidates based on the date of attaining eligibility in terms of the Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules. C. In view of the large number of candidates available for selection to less number of available posts, identify the Field of Selection using the DoPT prescribed formula of 2 x Available Vacancies + 4 . For example for 10 vacancies, the field of selection would be 24. D. Fix the benchmark. In the present case it is ‘good’. E . In the field of Selection, the grading is marked. F . Prepare the Select List of the most meritorious candidates in terms of this Hon’ble Court’s criterion in paras 39 to 42 of Judgment in CA No. 8468/2003 and batch, and listing of the successful candidates in accordance with their merit with reference to the entries given in Annual Confidential Reports, which inter alia included all or most of the ingredients constituting merit as enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Para 42 of the judgment, and not in accordance with seniority, for that year of selection.” 8
8. A new list of promotees was, on the above basis, prepared by the review DPC, which according to the respondents was based on the inter se merit of the candidates. The petitioners find fault with the above procedure but only to the extent para ‘B’ reproduced above determines the zone of consideration, based on the date the candidates acquired their eligibility in terms of Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that this action of the respondent has totally distorted the picture and denied to persons who were otherwise eligible and senior in terms of their length of service, an opportunity to compete for promotion. It is argued on their behalf that the process of preparing a list of eligible candidates on the basis of the date of obtaining eligibility is totally wrong, unfair and discriminatory. The date on which a candidate acquires his eligibility would depend upon the date on which he completes three years after obtaining the degree qualification. The obtaining of degree qualification would, in turn, depend upon several imponderables beyond the control of the candidates including whether the candidates were 9
working on a hard or soft posting over which the candidates have no control. It was urged that while length of service of Sections Officers/Junior Engineers may not count for purposes of determining their inter se merit, the same was the only sound basis for identifying the zone of consideration. Inasmuch as the Government has ignored the length of service of the candidates and departed from the principle of seniority of candidates who served in the same cadre while drawing-up of the list of eligible candidates, it has committed a mistake that needs to be corrected. 9. There is, in our opinion, considerable merit in that submission of the petitioners. There is no gainsaying that this Court has unequivocally declared that promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers in the service shall be on the basis of merit and merit alone and that seniority of the candidates cannot be taken as an input for determining such merit. This Court has also very clearly rejected the procedure followed by the Government whereby the date on which the candidate had acquired his degree qualification 10
was taken as a determining factor. That being so, and given the large number of candidates eligible for consideration the Government was entitled to adopt the method of restricting the zone of consideration based on the number of vacancies. Inasmuch as the Government relied upon the DoPT guidelines for achieving that objective it committed no fault. The question, however, is whether the Government could draw-up a list of eligible candidates not by reference to the length of service in the cadre but by reference to the date on which the candidates acquired the eligibility which, as noticed earlier, was itself dependent upon the date on which the candidate acquired the degree qualification. Since, however, the acquisition of a degree qualification itself was not based on any consistently uniform criterion, test or procedure, the date on which such a qualification was acquired and resultantly the date on which the candidate attained their eligibility was also bound to be anything but uniform and non-discriminatory. As between the date of acquiring eligibility and the date of entering service as a Section Officer/Junior Engineer the latter was, in our 11
opinion, a more intelligible, fair and reasonable yardstick to be applied for drawing-up the list of eligible candidates by the review DPC. Inasmuch as the review DPC relied upon the date of acquiring eligibility as the basis for preparation of the list of eligible candidates, it committed a mistake which needs to be corrected. 10. Having said so, there is, in our opinion, no deliberate or contumacious breach of the directions of this Court to warrant punitive action against those responsible for taking the said decision. The error it appears has occurred more because of an erroneous perception on the part of the government and the review DPC that the method adopted by them was sanctioned by law and the orders of this Court. We do not, therefore, consider it necessary to pass any orders of punishment against the respondent on that score although we would expect them to be more careful and circumspect in future. With the above observation we dispose of these contempt petitions with a direction to the respondent-State to redo the exercise in terms of the directions of this Court in N. Suresh Nathan (supra) 12
keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. No costs. ……………………………………… .…..…J. (T.S. THAKUR) ………………………… …………… .…..…J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) New Delhi October 16, 2015 13
ITEM NO.202 COURT NO.2 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No.339 of 2013 In C.A. No.8468 of 2003 C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for intervention and office report) (For Final Disposal) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 340/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) Date: 04/09/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan,Sr.Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. Mr. Sathyawan Rathee,Adv. Mr. V. Senthil Kumar,Adv. Ms. V.S. Lakshmi,Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. P.P. Rao,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. For Intervener(s) Mr. A.K. Ganguli,Sr.Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. Sankara Kausik,Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
, ITEM NO.202 COURT NO.2 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No.339 of 2013 In C.A. No.8468 of 2003 C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for intervention and office report) (For Final Disposal) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 340/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) Date: 04/09/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan,Sr.Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. Mr. Sathyawan Rathee,Adv. Mr. V. Senthil Kumar,Adv. Ms. V.S. Lakshmi,Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. P.P. Rao,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. For Intervener(s) Mr. A.K. Ganguli,Sr.Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. Sankara Kausik,Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Arguments heard.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMahabir SinghDate: 2015.09.04 Judgment reserved.16:42:55 ISTReason: (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.204 COURT NO.2 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339 of 2013 In C.A. No. 8468 of 2003 C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for intervention and office report) (For Final Disposal) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 340/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) Date: 09/03/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. Viswanathan,Sr.Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. Mr. V.Senthil Kumar,Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. P.P.Rao,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. For Intervener(s) Mr. A.K. Ganguli,Sr.Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Adv. Ms. Athira Nair,Adv. For M/s. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the joint requests, post after ensuing summer vacation 2015. (MAHABIR SINGH) (SUNEET MAHAJAN) Court Master Assistant Registrar
Ò ITEM NO.204 COURT NO.2 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339 of 2013 In C.A. No. 8468 of 2003 C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for intervention and office report) (For Final Disposal) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 340/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) Date: 09/03/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. Viswanathan,Sr.Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. Mr. V.Senthil Kumar,Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. P.P.Rao,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. For Intervener(s) Mr. A.K. Ganguli,Sr.Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Adv. Ms. Athira Nair,Adv. For M/s. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followingSignature Not Verified O R D E R At the joint requests, post after ensuing summer vacation 2015.Digitally signed byMahabir SinghDate: 2015.03.0918:10:42 ISTReason: (MAHABIR SINGH) (SUNEET MAHAJAN) Court Master Assistant Registrar
1 ITEM NO.204 COURT NO.2 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for intervention and office report) (For Final Disposal) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 340/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) Date : 10/10/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.V.Shetty, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. Mr. V.S.Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. S.Gurrukrishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. Mr. A.K.Ganguli, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. P.P.Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.J.Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. M/s. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.
2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Post in the month of January, 2015. (SHASHI SAREEN) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
6 1 ITEM NO.204 COURT NO.2 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for intervention and office report) (For Final Disposal) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 340/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 (With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) Date : 10/10/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.V.Shetty, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,Adv. Mr. V.S.Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. S.Gurrukrishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. M. A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. Mr. A.K.Ganguli, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. P.P.Rao, Sr. Adv.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by Mr. Altaf Ahmad, Sr. Adv.Shashi SareenDate: 2014.10.1807:03:25 ALMT Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv.Reason: Mr. S.J.Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. M/s. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co. 2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Post in the month of January, 2015.
(SHASHI SAREEN) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.804 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 No(s). C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 17/09/2014 This petition was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. V.Santhana Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. A.Venayagam Balan, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matter to retain its position. (Shashi Sareen) Court Master (Saroj Saini) Court Master (The matter is coming on 10.10.2014)
v ITEM NO.804 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 339/2013 In C.A. No. 8468/2003 No(s). C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 17/09/2014 This petition was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. V.Santhana Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. A.Venayagam Balan, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matter to retain its position. (Shashi Sareen) (Saroj Saini) Court Master Court Master (The matter is coming on 10.10.2014)Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byShashi SareenDate: 2014.09.1909:01:19 ALMTReason:
D 1ITEM NO.202 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 339 OF 2013 IN Civil Appeal No.8468/2003C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for intervention and office report)(For Final Disposal)WITHContempt Petition (C) No.340 of 2013 in C.A.No.8468 of 2003(With Appln.(s) for Directions and Office Report)(For Final Disposal)I.A.Nos.1-4 in C.A.No.8468 of 2003(For Directions and Intervention and office report)Date: 09/05/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar,Sr.Adv.(in 339/13) Mr. M.A.Chinnasamy,Adv.(in 340/13) Ms. Indu Malhotra,Sr.Adv. Mr. A.Venayagam Balan,Adv.(in 8468/03) Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. P.P. Rao,Sr.Adv. Mr. Altaf Ahmed,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. Prabu Rama Subramanian,Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv. Mr. A.K. Ganguly,Sr.Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavni,Adv. M/s. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co. Mr. T.V. Ratnam,Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv. Mr. M.A. Krishna Moorthy,Adv. 2 Mr. S.R. Setia,Adv. Mr. A.Venayagam Balan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RHeard.Post in the month of September, 2014.
(Mahabir Singh) (Saroj Saini) Court Master Court Master
@ITEM NO.MM1 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 339 OF 2013 IN Civil Appeal 8468/2003C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s)(With application for intervention and office report)WITHCONTEMPT PETITION ) NO. 340/2013[J. LUCIEN PEDRO KUMAR & ANR. V. TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, IAS & ORS.](With application for directions and office report)Date: 29/04/2014 This Petition was called mentioned today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAMentioned by Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv.For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.Venayagam Balan,AdvFor Intervenor (s) Mr. T.V. Ratnam, Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these matters next week. [KALYANI GUPTA] [SHARDA KAPOOR] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
HITEM NO.42 & 43 COURT NO.5 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 339 OF 2013 IN Civil Appeal 8468/2003C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s)(With application for intervention and office report)WITHCONTEMPT PETITION ) NO. 340/2013[J. LUCIEN PEDRO KUMAR & ANR. V. TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, IAS & ORS.](With application for directions and office report)Date: 24/03/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv.(in CP 339) Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv. (in CP 340) Mr. M.A.Chinnasamy, Adv. Mr. S. Muthu Krishna, Adv. Mr. A.Venayagam Balan,AdvFor Intervenor (s) Mr. T.V. Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Munawwar Naseem, Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R| ||These matters be listed on 22nd April, 2014 for final disposal. || ||[KALYANI GUPTA] | |[SHARDA KAPOOR] ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |
tITEM Nos.42 & 43 COURT NO.5 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 339 OF 2013 IN Civil Appeal 8468/2003C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for intervention and office report)ANDCONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 340 OF 2013 IN Civil Appeal 8468/2003J. LUCIEN PEDRO KUMAR & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s)(With applns. for directions and office report)Date: 24/02/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLACONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 339 OF 2013For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.A.Chinnasamy, Adv. Mr. K. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Mr. V. Senthil Kumar, Adv.For Intervenor(s) Mr. T.V. Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Munawwar Naseem, Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv.CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 340 OF 2013For Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the respondents, let these matters be listed on 24th March, 2014. (G. SUDHAKARA RAO) (KALYANI GUPTA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
fITEM NO.MM-1 COURT NO.5 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 339 OF 2013 IN Civil Appeal 8468/2003C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s)ANDCONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 340 OF 2013 IN Civil Appeal 8468/2003Date: 17/01/2014 These Petitions were MENTIONED today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv. (Mentioned by) Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, Adv. Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. UPON being mentioned by the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R These matters be retained for listing on 24th February, 2014. (G. SUDHAKARA RAO) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
$ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.6 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 340 OF 2013 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8468 OF 2003J. LUCIEN PEDRO KUMAR & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTMT. M. SATYAVATHY, IAS & ORS. Respondent(s)(For stay and office)Date: 18/11/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. M.A. Krishnamoorthy, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Altaf Ahmad, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabu Rama Subramanian, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R| ||Perused the letter circulated by learned counsel for the respondents. ||List the matter after four weeks. || ||[KALYANI GUPTA] | |[INDU POKHRIYAL] ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER | [PS: Copy of letter is placed in Cont. Petn. 339/2013.]
ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.6 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 339 OF 2013 IN Civil Appeal 8468/2003(FOR PREL. HEARING)C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS. Respondent(s)Date: 23/09/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Rakesh Dvivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.A.Chinnasamy, Adv. Mr. K. Krishnakumar, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice returnable in four weeks. Since the respondents/alleged contemnors have already entered appearance through their counsel, no formal notice be issued. Personal appearance of the alleged contemnors is dispensed with for the time being. (G. SUDHAKARA RAO) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.15 + 52 COURT NO.6 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 340 OF 2013 IN Civil Appeal 8468/2003(FOR PREL. HEARING)J. LUCIEN PEDRO KUMAR & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUSTMT. M. SATYAVATHY, IAS & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for directions and office report)WITHI.A.NOs. 6-7 IN C.A.NO. 8468 OF 2003(For permission to file appln. for impleadment and permission to file appln. for modification/clarification with office report)Date: 23/09/2013 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. A.Venayagam Balan, Adv. Ms. V.S. Lakshmi, Adv.In I.As.6-7 Mr. M.A. Krishnamurthy, Adv. Ms. S. Muthu Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Senthil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra Garg, Adv. Mr. S.R. Setia, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 340 OF 2013 Issue notice returnable in four weeks. Since the respondents/alleged contemnors have already entered appearance through their counsel, no formal notice be issued. Personal appearance of the alleged contemnors is dispensed with for the time being. I.As. 6-7 List along with Contempt Petn. No. 340 of 2013. (G. SUDHAKARA RAO) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER