Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1191 (AP)

Kammara Upendrachari v. P. Koteswara Rao

2023-08-14

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2023
ORDER : This Contempt Case is filed under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents/ contemnors for Contempt of Court for willful and deliberate disobedience in not comply the orders passed by this Court dated 18.10.2022 in W.P.No.33879 of 2022, which reads as follows : “5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and without touching the merits of the case, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations dated 24.08.2022 and 10.10.2022 of the petitioner for encashment of earned leave for 300 days and other pensionary benefits, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.” 2. Heard Mr. Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ contemnors. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents failed to comply with the orders of this Court willfully 2nd and deliberately, despite of legal notice issued to the respondent on 30.12.2022 and informed that the 2nd respondent sought clarification from the 1st respondent is highly illegal and arbitrary and placed on record the letter dated 24.02.2023 addressed by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent wherein it was stated as follows : “In view of the above it is here by directed to the RDO, Nandyal who is competent authority to sanction the enactment of earned leave of 300 days and payment of other pensionary benefits to the individual i.e. Sri K. Upendra Achari, Senior Assistant (Retd.,) O/o Sub-Collector, Nandyal as requested in the reference 8th cited as per The Revised Andhra Pradesh Pension Rules 1980. The Andhra Pradesh leave Rules 1933, as per the G.O.Ms.No.232, Finance (FR-1), Dept, Dt.16.09.2005 and as per The Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules F.R.54-A. Hence it is to inform that there is no need of any further clarification/ specific orders from this office.” It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is specific clarification from the 1st respondent as cited supra, the 2nd respondent failed to implement the orders of this Court, which amounts to contempt of court. 4. 4. During hearing learned counsel for the respondents placed on record the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 19.04.2023, which reads as follows : “In this case, there is an appeal petition pending before the Government of Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, Memo No. 11021/127/CV.2/2018, dated 01.12.2020 regarding the Cancellation of the Kammara (ST) Caste Certificate of the petitioner against the orders of DLSC i.e. Collector, Kurnool vide Proceedings No. Rc.C6.531/M/2007 dated 09.04.2020. And no orders received from Government or from the Collector, Kurnool for regularization of break period of service i.e. from 13.08.2019 to 20.06.2021. The petitioner has already been informed vide reference 4th cited, through his counsel through register post receipt no. RN 457641395IN, Dt: 23.01.2023 as the specific orders are requested from the competent authority for taking necessary action on the representations of the petitioner. Hence unless Service Regularization Orders by the competent authority is obtained and produced by the petitioner, the request of the petitioner for encashment of earned leave for 300 days and other pensionary benefits is hereby rejected”. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the proceedings dated 19.04.2023, which referred supra, it is very clear that unless service regularization orders by the competent authority is obtained and produced by the petitioner, the request of the petitioner for encashment of earned leave for 300 days and other pensionary benefits was rejected by the 2nd respondent. Therefore question of disobeying the orders of this Court does not arise and requested to close the Contempt Case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this Court with regard to finding given by this Court in the Writ Petition that the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations dated 24.08.2022 and 10.10.2022 of the petitioner for encashment of earned leave for 300 days and other pensionary benefits, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks and later notice has been issued to the respondents after long elapse of time. But the 2nd respondent strangely invented a new story while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, though the 1st respondent has given specific directions to the 2nd respondent with regard to clarification as raised, but the 2nd respondent has deliberately rejected the claim of the petitioner. Therefore contempt may be issued. 6. Perused the record. 7. But the 2nd respondent strangely invented a new story while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, though the 1st respondent has given specific directions to the 2nd respondent with regard to clarification as raised, but the 2nd respondent has deliberately rejected the claim of the petitioner. Therefore contempt may be issued. 6. Perused the record. 7. As could be seen from the record, it is evident that the 1st respondent given clarification vide letter dated 24.02.2023 as cited supra, therefore the claim of the petitioner is in accordance with the existing rules and G.Os. Further the 1st respondent informed that there is no need of any further clarification/ specific orders from the office of 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent cited in the said proceedings dated 19.04.2023 as reference No.5, but the 2nd respondent informed that for taking necessary action on the petitioner’s representations dated 24.08.2022 and 10.10.2022, specific instructions were requested from the Competent Authority i.e. 1st respondent, but as per reference 4th cited in the proceedings dated 19.04.2023 no specific orders were issued and directed to take necessary action as per the pension, leave rules and fundamental rules in force. Further the 2nd respondent made a mention that as per service register and records, it was noticed some omissions that there are no entries of regularization of services issued by the competent authority for the break period from 13.08.2019 to 20.06.2021 i.e. dismissal from service and reinstatement. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of this Court with regard to F.R. 54-1 of A.P. Fundamental Rules, which reproduced hereunder : “54-1. When a Government servant, who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired is reinstated as a result of appeal or review or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation (while under suspension or not), the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order. (a) Regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and (b) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as period spent on duty. (a) Regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and (b) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as period spent on duty. Further, it is also draws the attention of this Court with regard to Rule 52(1)(c) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980, ‘no gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders’. Therefore, as per directions of this Court in W.P.No.33879 of 2022, the respondent authorities considered the representations of the petitioner dated 24.08.2022 and 10.10.2022 and rejected the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondents have disobeying the orders of this court is not sustainable and the Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed. 9. As could be seen from the material on record, it shows that the order passed by this Court on 18.10.2022 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner within four weeks. Since then, the respondents did not take any action, till the petitioner issued legal notice dated 30.12.2022 i.e. after lapse of two months from the date of order of this Court and later rejected the claim of the petitioner and issued proceedings dated 19.04.2023 by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it is apparent on the face of the record, both the respondents/ contemnors failed to comply with the order within time as fixed by this Court, it amounts to Contempt of Court. 10. However, there is abnormal delay caused in between the respondents and also subsequent delay, after filing this Contempt Case, at this stage, the impugned rejection order dated 19.04.2023 is brought into existence is highly illegal and arbitrary. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the conduct of the respondents/ contemnors is such as would justify invocation of contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Not only have the contemnors unreasonably delayed and defaulted in compliance of the orders of this Court without explaining the cause for such default after long elapse of time and simply rejected the claim of the petitioner. 12. I must express my inability to agree. Not only have the contemnors unreasonably delayed and defaulted in compliance of the orders of this Court without explaining the cause for such default after long elapse of time and simply rejected the claim of the petitioner. 12. I must express my inability to agree. It is incumbent upon the respondents, more particularly, those who are holding senior position in Government, to ensure that the Orders of this Court are complied with promptitude, and within the time stipulated for its compliance. 13. Under these circumstances, this Court of the firm view that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court dated 18.10.2022 in W.P.No.33879 of 2022 and thereby the respondents are guilty of contempt and have rendered themselves liable for suitable punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The respondents/ contemnors are hereby held guilty for the contempt of this Court for willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 18.10.2022 in W.P.No.33879 of 2022 and is held liable to be punished suitably under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. 14. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and the contemnors/ respondents are directed to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-(Rupees one hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) week. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to take steps accordingly. Further, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings, if he so advised, in accordance with procedure. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.