L.K. Subramanian vs Mr. N. Ramalingam, General Manager, The Mangement of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. Vasudevan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P. John, the learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent.

This contempt petition has been filed seeking to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying the order passed by this Court, on 27.08.2001, in

W.M.P. Nos. 17489 and 19290 of 2001 in W.P. No. 7873 of 2001.

It is submitted by the petitioner that he was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent bank in the year 1976 and later, he had been employed as

an accountant in the year 1994. He was discharged from service in the year 1999 based on certain allegations. After exhausting the appeal

remedies, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 7873 of 2001, challenging the order discharging him from

service. This Court by an order, dated 27.08.2001, had issued certain directions for his reinstatement in service and for payment of salary to the

petitioner. The contempt petition has been filed stating that the directions issued by this Court by its order, dated 27.08.2001, had not been

complied with.

At this stage of hearing of the contempt petition, it was submitted that as against the interim orders passed by this Court, on 27.08.2001, a writ

appeal had been filed in W.A. Nos. 1976 and 1977 of 2001, wherein, the First Bench of this Court had passed the following order, on

25.04.2007:

Mr. Karthick, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner informs the Court that the matter has been settled out of Court and a

memorandum of compromise has been entered into by the parties. The said memorandum of compromise, duly signed by the parties, is also

placed on record by the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw the writ appeals and the writ petition in terms

of the said compromise. The leave sought for is granted and the writ appeals as well as the writ petition are dismissed. There will be no order as to

costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 17849 and 19290 of 201 in the writ petition are closed.

In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that no further orders are required to be passed in the contempt petition. Hence, the contempt

petition is closed.