HC pulls up finance dept official for contempt of court

HC pulls up finance dept official for contempt of court

K.Kaushik@timesgroup.com

Madurai:20.02.2021

Taking a serious view for not complying with a court order to reimburse medical expenses to a government employee, the Madras high court has sought an explanation from the secretary to government, finance (salaries) department, S Krishnan, as to why he should not be punished for his wilful disobedience of the orders of this court. The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by S Dhanalakshmi, who was working as BT Assistant in a corporation middle school in Madurai and is covered under the new health insurance scheme. The petitioner had undergone surgery in February 2018 and paid 1,22,454 towards medical expenses. The district-level empowered committee sent a proposal in September 2019 to disburse the medical expenses to the petitioner. Since, the amount was not reimbursed, Dhanalakshmi moved the HC Madurai bench and the court in its order in November 2019, had directed the secretary to disburse the eligible amount as per the Tamil Nadu Medical Attendance Rules.

Since the earlier order was not complied with, the petitioner filed the present contempt petition.

Justice M S Ramesh said that in order to give an opportunity to the contemnor, the court had directed the government advocate to get instructions by an order during March 2020. Thereafter, the contempt petition was adjourned on seven occasions. Ultimately, when the matter was listed on January 7, 2021, it was submitted that the authorities had not chosen to instruct the government pleader’s office. The judge said that the court has issued statutory notice for the secretary’s personal appearance on February 18. However, the secretary did not appear before the court. On the other hand, the additional government pleader produced a copy of GO dated January 19, 2021 and submitted that the earlier order of the court dated has been complied with. The judge said that GO reads to the effect that the petitioner may not be entitled for the claim made by her on certain heads and had ultimately derived the eligible amount at 2,570.

The judge observed that on a prima facie view, the contemnor has wilfully disobeyed the order on two counts - not complying with the statutory notice which was issued for his appearance, and not complying with the earlier order of this court and instead re-appraised and arriving at contrary conclusions with regard to the petitioner’s entitlement.

“All these callous and careless attitude in dealing with the order of the high court shows the utter disregard the contemnor has, to the sanctity of law,” observed the judge. Hence, the judge called upon the secretary to render his explanation within a period of 15 days.

The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by S Dhanalakshmi, who was working as BT Assistant in a corporation middle school in Madurai