Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 786 (AP)

T. Madhu v. Maddali Ravi Chandra

2020-12-09

BATTU DEVANAND

body2020
ORDER : Battu Devanand, J. 1. "The W.P. No. 9942 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner herein with the following prayer:- "to declare the impugned action of the respondents 1 and 3 in not releasing the salaries to the petitioner in spite of fixation of pay to the petitioner as per Revised pay scales 2015 by the 2nd respondent on mere technical reasons and further action of 1 respondent in not taking any action for accepting PRC bills of Petitioner in spite of letter addressed by the 2nd respondent through Lr. No 128/C1 I/2015 dated 08/12/2015 thereby depriving the Petitioner of his salaries and increments as per revised pay scales 2015 as highly illegal and arbitrary and contrary to G O Ms. No 46 Finance HRM VPC Department dated 30/04/2015 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the arrears salaries, increments and other allowances due to Petitioner as per Revised pay scale Rules 2015 issued vide G O Ms. No 46 Finance HRM VPC Department dated 30.04.2015." 2. In W.P.M.P. No. 12324 of 2017 in W.P. No. 9942 of 2017, this Court has granted interim direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the salaries and increments to the petitioner as per the Revised Pay Scales, 2015 as fixed by the 2nd respondent without insisting for permanent I.D. numbers pending disposal of the Writ Petition. 3. For non-compliance of the said Order, the petitioner filed a Contempt Case in C.C. No. 1191 of 2018 before this Court, but it was closed on the ground that the Contempt Case was filed against the 2nd respondent in Writ Petition, against whom, no interim Order was passed by this Court. 4. Subsequently, the present Contempt Case is filed. In this Contempt Case, earlier the respondents 1 and 2 appeared before this Court personally as per the directions of this Court and having heard them their appearance was dispensed with after recording their statements that the Order of this Court is already implemented. 5. 4. Subsequently, the present Contempt Case is filed. In this Contempt Case, earlier the respondents 1 and 2 appeared before this Court personally as per the directions of this Court and having heard them their appearance was dispensed with after recording their statements that the Order of this Court is already implemented. 5. The petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that in spite of undertaking given by them before the Court, the Order was not complied with and after considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both sides on 24.11.2020, this Court made the following Order:- "The issue involved in this matter is quite simple and if there is a will on the part of the concerned particularly, the Government Departments, it can be resolved without any difficulty much to the relief of the petitioners. A bill is already presented to the Treasury by the A.P. Legislative and it appears that the bill has been returned for want of funds or raising a technical objection. In the matter of this nature, inviting contempt action from the Court by any of the respondents is completely uncalled for, which could have been resolved amicably otherwise. In the above circumstances, without going further deep into the matter, the office of A.P. Legislature is directed to present the bill relating to the petitioners to the concerned Treasury and it shall be attended to by the Treasury Officer without raising any type of objections henceforth. The Secretary, Finance Department of the Government shall see that the necessary funds are available for meeting this expenditure. To comply with these directions by 04.12.2020 otherwise contempt action shall issue." 6. This Contempt Case again listed on 07.12.2020 before this Court and this Court noticed that the directions of this Court, dated 24.11.2020 also were not complied with, though this case is listed for compliance. 7. Considering the attitude of the respondents that they have no respect towards the Court Orders to implement and this Court opined that they wilfully and deliberately failed to implement the Orders of this Court, dated 22.03.2017 and 24.11.2020. Having no other option, this Court directed the appearance of the three officers as listed below:- 1.) Sri. Shamsher Singh Rawat, Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District; 2.) Sri. Having no other option, this Court directed the appearance of the three officers as listed below:- 1.) Sri. Shamsher Singh Rawat, Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District; 2.) Sri. Mohan Rao, Main Pay Accounts Officer, Anjaneya Towers, VTPS Road, Ibrahimpatnam, Near Vijayawada City, Krishna District; and 3.) Respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 9942 of 2017/the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legislature. 8. Today, when this matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 3rd respondent could not present before this Court today due to the reason that he has pre-fixed meetings in the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India on certain financial issues having bearing on the State of Andhra Pradesh on 09.12.2020 at New Delhi, for which his presence is un-avoidable and sought permission of this Court to dispense with his personal appearance on 09.12.2020. 9. In the same affidavit filed along with the application, the 3rd respondent contended that the Order copy of the Hon'ble High Court passed in C.C. No. 103 of 2019 is not received by this respondent. He further contended that the 5th respondent i.e., A.P. State Legislature has not presented any bills relating to the petitioner so far. 10. It has to be noted that this affidavit was filed on 08.12.2020. It appears from the affidavit of the 3rd respondent that till 08.12.2020 no bill was presented by the A.P. State Legislature i.e., the 5th respondent. 11. The contention of the 3rd respondent made in his affidavit filed along with the dispense with application is not acceptable due to the reason that the Orders, dated 22.03.2017 and 24.11.2020 were passed in the presence of his counsel and as such he cannot take ground for non-implementation of the Order saying that the Order was not communicated. 12. It is settled law that if the Order copy is despatched to the correct address by the High Court Registry or like any notice to be issued by the learned counsels to the parties sending it (or) posting it for the correct address is sufficient proof of service. 13. As such, this Court is not inclined to accept the reason submitted by the 3rd respondent in his affidavit filed along with dispense with application. 14. 13. As such, this Court is not inclined to accept the reason submitted by the 3rd respondent in his affidavit filed along with dispense with application. 14. However, considering the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and the averments made in the affidavit of the 3rd respondent that he has pre-fixed meetings in the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India on certain financial issues having bearing on the State of Andhra Pradesh on 09.12.2020 at New Delhi, the appearance of the 3rd respondent to present before this Court today i.e., on 09.12.2020 is dispensed with for today. The 3rd respondent has to present before this Court on the next date of hearing, for which this Court intends to adjourn this matter 15. As per the averments of the affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent along with the dispense with petition, it is clearly established that the Secretary of the A.P. State Legislature did not submit any bills of the petitioner to the Pay & Accounts Department till 08.12.2020. 16. The Secretary of the A.P. State Legislature i.e., the 5th respondent, who present before this Court in compliance of the Form-I notice issued on 07.12.2020 submits that they submitted bills to the Pay & Accounts Department on 08.12.2020. When this Court asked the 5th respondent as to why their office failed to send proposals to the Pay & Accounts Department earlier in compliance of the Orders, dated 22.03.2017, he submits that on earlier occasions also they sent bills to the Pay & Accounts Department i.e., the 4th respondent, but they were returned with certain queries. This Court opines that there is no clarity and fairness in the submissions of the Secretary of A.P. Legislature i.e., the 5th respondent in Contempt Case. 17. The 4th respondent, who present before this Court today in compliance of the notice issued in Form-I, dated 07.12.2020 submits that he joined as Main Pay & Accounts Officer on 04.10.2018 and till then, since yesterday, he has not received any bills from the A.P. State Legislature. Immediately after receipt of bills on 08.12.2020 he processed it and made payments and as such he never violated the Orders of this Court. 18. Immediately after receipt of bills on 08.12.2020 he processed it and made payments and as such he never violated the Orders of this Court. 18. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after hearing the oral explanations submitted made by the Officers, who present before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that something went wrong in implementing the Orders of this Court for the last three years, for which the petitioner suffered a lot. The deliberate and wilful intention on the part of the respondent officers to defeat the interest of the petitioner to enjoy the fruits of the Orders passed by this Court. However, in view of the fact that all the three Officers i.e., respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in Contempt Case, who are responsible for non-implementation of the Orders of this Court are making different statements with regard to the non-implementation of the Orders. This Court directs these three Officers to file their separate sworn affidavits stating the factual position happened from 22.03.2017 to 08.12.2020 stating the date-wise information with regard to when bills were presented, when they were returned, when it was resubmitted and finally on which date, the payment was made and who is responsible for not implementing the Orders of the Court for a period of more than three years. They shall file their separate affidavits by 17.12.2020. 19. After considering their affidavits, appropriate Orders will be passed after considering the fact that who is responsible for not implementing the Orders of this Court for a period of three years and causing loss to the petitioner and what punishment can be imposed by this Court against the responsible Officer under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. 20. The Officers, who present before this Court, shall remain present on the next day of hearing also. 21. Post on 17.12.2020.