Dismissed

Ttd Class-Iv Employees Union v. Sri.D.K.Adikesavulu

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Mar 2022CC/14/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case alleging violation of an order regarding seniority fixation, the court found that the seniority had been fixed in compliance with the earlier order. It held that the contempt was purged and dismissed the petition as there was no point in continuing proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case dismissed; no costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Ttd Class-Iv Employees Union Vs… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

CONTEMPT CASE No.14 of 2009

¶4

(Through physical mode)

¶5

TTD Class IV Employees Union (Retd No.F/255/80), Tirumala, Tirupati, Rep.by its Addl. General Secretary, T. Madanmohan. ..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

D.K. Adikesavulu, Chairman, Board of Trustees, Tirumala-Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor District and another. …Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Meherchand Nori Counsel for the respondents : Mr. P. Harinath Gupta Dr. Majji Suri Babu Mr. S.Lakshma Reddy

¶9

ORAL ORDER

¶10

Dt:10.03.2022

¶11

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, none appears for the parties. Perused the record.

¶12

This contempt case has been preferred on 20.01.2009 alleging wilful violation of the order dated 13.06.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.17403 of 2003 and 12897 of 2005. The issue pertains to inter-se seniority of the members of the petitioner’s union vis-à-vis unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 117.

¶13

In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, it is stated that the seniority has been fixed in compliance with the order passed by this Court and thus, the contempt has been purged.

¶14

HCJ C.C.No.14/2009

¶15

¶16

A reply-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counteraffidavit stating that before finalizing the seniority, the official respondents should have issued notice to the petitioners and at the same time admitting that the notice was served later.

¶17

Perusal of the order sheet shows that when the matter came up for hearing on 01.03.2011, it was informed to this Court that the order has already been complied with. Similar submission was made by the learned counsel for the respondents on 01.03.2012 also. However, the matter remained pending and it is now listed for the first time after 24.04.2012.

¶18

It seems, the contempt has already been purged by fixing the seniority. If the applicants have any grievance about the fixation of seniority by the respondents pursuant to the orders of this Court, they may maintain a fresh writ petition. There is no point in continuing these contempt proceedings as the contempt has been purged.

¶19

Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications including C.A. No.563 of 2011 shall stand closed.

¶20

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ

HCJ C.C.No.14/2009

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

CONTEMPT CASE No.14 of 2009

¶26

Dt:10.03.2022

¶27

Ttd Class-Iv Employees Union v. Sri.D.K.Adikesavulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ttd Class-Iv Employees Union v. Sri.D.K.Adikesavulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Nanduri Janakli Ram, Vs M/S Sri Laxmli Venkateswara Real Estates

Dr. Nanduri Janaki Ram Vs M/S Oak Tree Constructions Private Limited

M/s.Alana Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/s.My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt., Ltd.

Meda Venkata Kumara Swamy Vs The Managing Director

K. Ramachandra Reddy, Vs Sr P.Ramakanth Reddy

R.Radha Krishna Vs Sri Sunil Sarma