Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 470 (AP)

Y. K. Satyanarayana Murthy v. J. V. G. R. Bhano

2023-02-28

M.GANGA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT M.Ganga Rao, J. - The petitioner filed this contempt case under the provisions of Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') alleging the wilful and deliberate violation of orders passed by this Court on 12.06.2018 in W.P.No.5094 of 2001. 2. This Court, by order dated 12.06.2018 in W.P.No.5094 of 2001, directed as follows: '... Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as lecturer in Political Science Department in the first respondent College as he has put in nearly 24 years of service and now aged about 55 years. At least now his services can be utilized as lecturer in Political Science Department in the first respondent College. The respondents are directed to complete this exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pay the monetary benefit to the petitioner as per his eligibility. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.' 3. Now, the 4th respondent filed the reply-affidavit in the contempt case stating that the Government, following the Government Memo No.573/225/A3/PC.III/97 Finance Department dated 01.09.1997, issued G.O.Ms.No.18, Higher Education [C.E.A2] Department, dated 15.04.2021, regularizing the services of the petitioner, a Part Time Lecturer in Political Science Department of SKBR College, Amalapuram with prospective effect from the date of issuance of orders by the competent appointing authority subject to condition that the said vacancy is clear, regular and continued from time to time till date. The petitioner has joined as Lecturer in Political Science Department of the 1st respondent college on 26.04.2021. As per G.O.Ms.No.42, Higher Education [C.E.] Department, dated 10.08.2021, the petitioner along with other aided employees in the 1st respondent college were given options for absorption into Government. Accordingly, the petitioner was absorbed into Government vide G.O.Rt.No.176, Higher Education [CE.A2] Department, dated 01.09.2021 and he has been working as Lecturer in Political Science in Government Degree College, Razole, East Godavari District. This Court, by order dated 25.06.2018, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as Lecturer in Political Science Department of the 1st respondent College and pay the monetary benefits to the petitioner as per his eligibility. This Court, by order dated 25.06.2018, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as Lecturer in Political Science Department of the 1st respondent College and pay the monetary benefits to the petitioner as per his eligibility. The services of the petitioner as Lecturer were regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.04.2021 prospectively from the date of issuance of the Government Order and he is being paid the salary regularly from the date of regularization of his services and there is no wilful and deliberate violation of the orders passed by this Court. 4. Sri E.Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while taking this Court to various proceedings filed along with contempt case and reply-affidavits, states that the services of the petitioner were regularized prospectively from the date of G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.04.2021. However, the services of the several persons similarly situated like that of the petitioner were regularized with retrospective effect and paid the arrears of salary vide G.O.Rt.No.160, Higher Education Department, dated 16.02.2001, G.O.Rt.No.30, Higher Education Department, dated 19.01.2002 and G.O.Rt.No.162, Higher Education Department, dated 02.03.2002, whereas the petitioner is discriminated and his services were regularized prospectively even though he has been working since long time. 5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4, states that the petitioner joined as Lecturer in Political Science Department in the 1st respondent college on 26.04.2021. Admittedly, the petitioner was worked on hourly basis and the same could not be said that his services were utilized in the 1st respondent college as Lecturer on consolidated pay against the sanctioned post to regularize his services retrospectively. However, the Government has considered the petitioner's case for regularization as per the orders passed by this Court on 12.06.2018 in W.P.No.5094 of 2001 and issued G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.04.2021 regularizing his services prospectively from the date of issuance of said Government Order. Then, the petitioner was opted for Government service and he was absorbed in the Government service and posted in Government Degree College, Razole, East Godavari District. 6. Then, the petitioner was opted for Government service and he was absorbed in the Government service and posted in Government Degree College, Razole, East Godavari District. 6. In view of the above discussion, this Court found that the Government has regularized the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in Political Science as he opted for Government service and his services were regularized in G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.04.2021 prospectively from the date of issuance of said G.O. and he is paying salary regularly from the date of regularization of his services and the same could not said to be violative of the orders passed by this Court and his services could have been regularized retrospectively as was done to others in similarly situated persons, could not held to be wilful and deliberate violation of the orders passed by this Court. Hence, the respondents are not liable to be punished under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and at best, it gives rise to a fresh cause of action to agitate before an appropriate forum, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.S.Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and others (1996) S.C.C. 291, wherein it is held at Para 6 as follows: '... It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the Single Judge could not be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act.' 7. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this contempt case shall also stand dismissed.