Madras HC recalls warrant after Chengalpattu Collector tenders apology

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court recalled the warrant issued against the Chengalpattu collector as the district administration complied with the order issued by the court.

On Tuesday, S Arunraj, the collector of Chengalpattu, physically appeared before Justice MS Ramesh as a bailable warrant issued against him for the noncompliance of the court order.

Upon appearance, the collector submitted an affidavit tendering unconditional apology for not complying with the court order and stated that it was not an act of wilful disobedience.

The statutory notice issued to appear before the court was not communicated, said the collector. It was also submitted that the contempt petitioner, M Rajagiri, was appointed in the Tiruporur Tahsildar office as junior assistant (temporary basis) pursuant to the court order.

After the submission, with the appearance of the collector for further proceedings, the judge recalled the warrant and posted the matter to April 4.

The petitioner Rajagiri moved a contempt petition against Chengalpattu district administration alleging that the respondent denied compensation employment to him despite court order.

Upon hearing the petition, Justice MS Ramesh directed the Chengalpattu collector to physically appear before the court on March 21. However, the collector failed to appear as per the order, hence the judge issued a bailable warrant against him.

The petitioner's father, who worked as a village assistant in Anaikundram, Madhuranthagam taluk, died while on duty in July 2001.

The application moved by the petitioner's mother seeking compensation employment was denied by the authority on the ground that a ban was imposed by the government not to appoint anyone under compassionate grounds from November 2001 to February 2006.

After the ban was lifted, the petitioner, who reached the age of 18, made an application seeking a compensation job, which was also rejected by the authority as it was filed belatedly.

In 2018, a division bench of the High Court rejected the stand of the State and directed the State to consider the petitioner's application and pass an appropriate order.

Despite the court order, the Chengalpattu collector rejected the application, stating it was filed three years late and his family is not in financial crisis.

Hence, the petitioner moved another petition in the High Court challenging the order issued by the collector in 2022. Upon hearing the petition, the HC refused to accept the stand of the State rejecting the application and directed to appoint the petitioner in appropriate post.