THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO.1863 OF 2013 Between:-
D.Gandhi. And …Petitioner Sri Love Agarwal, Principal Secretary to Govt. of A.P., Sports and Games Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
…Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO.1863 OF 2013 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for the respondents.
This contempt case is filed complaining violation of the order made in W.P.No.16617 of 2004 dated 15-
2-2013 in not implementing the order passed by this Court and to take action against the respondents under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The brief facts necessary for disposing of the contempt case may be stated as follows:- The petitioner is one of the regular employees of AP Scooters Limited declared as surplus employee along with others and he was allotted to the Sports Authority of A.P., on 2-8-1994 as Attender in the existing vacancy. According to him, though he was allotted on regular basis to the respondents organizations, his services were not regularized and he was not paid the regular scale as an Attender in the respondents’ organization. With the aforesaid grievance, he filed W.P.No.16617 of 2004 for a mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in the existing vacancy as an Attender in Sports Authority of A.P.
The petitioner withdrew the said writ petition, stating that in 63rd Board Meeting of SAAP, the case of the petitioner was discussed and the respondents have passed a resolution to the effect that in principle, it had resolved to absorb the petitioner and his services as an ex-employee of Andhra Pradesh Scooters Limited in the SAAP with effect from 3-8-1994 to 29-2-2012 i.e., till the date of his retirement to the SAAP services. In the said resolution, a clause was added to the effect that the decision will be implemented subject to the petitioner withdrawing the writ petition and proposals will be submitted to the Government for approval.
In view of the aforesaid resolution and on the undertaking given by the respondents, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition and both parties agreed to abide by the terms of the above mentioned resolution. Subsequently, W.P.No.44609 of 2012 was filed, stating that the respondents have not been implementing the orders of this Court and to issue a direction to the respondents to implement the orders passed by this Court pursuant to the withdrawal of the writ petition.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have implemented the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. Thereafter, the learned counsel states that pursuant to the retirement of the petitioner, the retirement benefits to the tune of rupees more than 10 lakhs have been paid on 6-6-2014.
There is no denial of the fact of paying the aforesaid amount. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner’s pay scale has not been properly fixed and retirement benefits have not been properly calculated and an amount which is far below the amount for which the petitioner in fact is entitled has been paid and interest also has not been paid. As to this, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that this is altogether an extraneous issue to the contempt case as the order passed by this Court in the writ petition is only to absorb the petitioner in the regular post of Attender and to make a recommendation to the Government, which in fact has been complied with by the respondents.
I agree with the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents for the reason that the order passed by this Court in the writ petition has been complied with by the respondents.
However, in view of the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is advised to make an application if really there is any improper calculation of retirement benefits and on such application being made, the respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the said application within a period of two months according to rules.
With the above direction, the contempt case is closed. The Miscellaneous Applications pending if any shall stand closed.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 18-06-2014 Shr.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO.1863 OF 2013 Date: 18-06-2014 Shr.