Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 791 (TS)

S. Rajeshwar Rao v. Christina Z. Chongthu

2025-06-09

T.MADHAVI DEVI

body2025
ORDER : T. MADHAVI DEVI, J. The respondents in W.P.(TR).No.5173 of 2017 filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.(TR).No.5173 of 2017 seeking suspension of the order dated 21.02.2024 in W.P.(TR).No.5173 of 2017 and I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.(TR).No.5173 of 2017 is filed seeking review of the order of this Court dated 21.02.2024 in W.P.(TR).No.5173 of 2017. 2. C.C.Nos.1598 and 1649 of 2024 are filed seeking to punish the respondents under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, for willful violation and deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 21.02.2024 in W.P.No.24241 of 2022 and in W.P.(TR).No.5173 of 2017 respectively and to pass such other order or orders. 3. While disposing of W.P.(TR).No.5173 of 2017, this Court had observed that the respondents therein had issued proceedings dated 15.12.2015 regularizing the services of the petitioner therein w.e.f. 31.03.2006; but without referring to the same and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 02.08.2016 has been passed and therefore, the order dated 02.08.2016 was set aside and the services of the petitioner were directed to be regularized with effect from 31.03.2006 as was done in the case of similarly placed persons. 4. This Court, vide order dated 21.02.2024 in W.P.No.24241 of 2022, passed the following order: “In view of the orders passed in Writ Petition (TR) No.5173 of 2017 dated 21.02.2024, the services of the petitioner are to be considered on regular basis with effect from 31.03.2006. Therefore, the respondents are hereby directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders for allotment of the petitioner in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.317. The petitioner shall also be paid all consequential monetary benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. Alleging non-compliance of the said orders dated 21.02.2024 in W.P.No.24241 of 2022 and W.P.(TR).No.5173 of 2017, the writ petitioner filed C.C.Nos.1598 and 1649 of 2024. 6. In the review application in W.P.(TR).No.5173 of 2017, the ground taken by the review petitioners/respondents is that the proceedings dated 15.12.2016 is not in favour of the writ petitioner and that the same was not brought to the notice of this Court and therefore, no relief could have been granted on the basis of such proceedings and therefore, the order is liable to be reviewed. 7. 7. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the review petitioners/respondents placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another v. Gokulprasad Maniklal Agarwal and another , [ (1999) 7 SCC 578 ] . It is stated that the petitioner has approached this Court after more than nine years and only after the finalization of the litigation in another similarly situated person; and therefore, granting consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Yogendra Shrivastava , [ (2010) 12 SCC 538 ] . Learned Special Government Pleader therefore prayed for review of the order of this Court dated 21.02.2024 in W.P.(TR).No.5173 of 2017. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, however, submitted that all the relevant facts have been considered by this Court while passing the final order and there was no case for any review of the said order. 9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the copy of the proceedings dated 15.12.2015 have been filed by the respondents along with their counter affidavit and it is noticed that the subject portion of the proceedings contains the name of the writ petitioner, whereas the order portion refers to one Sri S. Kiran Kumar S/o. Papanna, and the copy of the order has been marked to the writ petitioner herein. Further, vide proceedings in Rc.No.2832/E4/2016, dated 02.08.2016, a specific order has been passed regularizing the temporary services of Sri S. Rajeshwar Rao, Lap Technician Grade-II, with effect from 05.06.2015 FN. This Court had also noticed that the appointment of the petitioner is dated 31.03.2006, which was referred to at reference No.4 in the proceedings dated 15.12.2015 and on being satisfied that the name of Sri S. Kiran Kumar S/o. Papanna was wrongly mentioned in the order portion of the proceedings dated 15.12.2015, this Court has passed the order dated 21.02.2024 in W.P.(TR).No.5173 of 2017. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the review application and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Review I.A.No.2 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed. In view of the same, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is closed. 11. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the review application and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Review I.A.No.2 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed. In view of the same, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is closed. 11. C.C.Nos.1598 and 1649 of 2024 are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to comply with the orders of this Court dated 21.02.2024 in W.P.No.24241 of 2022 and in W.P.(TR).No.5173 of 2017 within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in both the contempt cases, shall stand closed.