Dismissed

G M Sreedhar v. Karikala Valavan

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Mar 2022CC/182/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court held that the filing of speaking orders by the 2nd respondent regarding seniority and promotion discharges the allegations of non-implementation of the earlier order. The contempt case was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to assail the speaking orders and vacating interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; liberty given to petitioner to assail the speaking orders dated 14.09.2021; pending miscellaneous petitions closed; interim orders vacated.

G M Sreedhar Vs Karikala Valavan — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶4

CONTEMPT CASE No.182 of 2021

¶5

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)

¶6

Heard Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents.

¶7

This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19234 of 2019.

¶8

The petitioner herein filed O.A.No.2336 of 2018 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an interim order on 11.10.2018 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant dated 09.07.2018 regarding assigning notional seniority in the cadre of Deputy Director by regularizing his period of suspension and consequential request for promotion to the post of Junior Director and further directed the respondents

¶9

¶10

to pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.

¶11

Complaining the non-implementation of the said order, the petitioner herein approached this Court by way of W.P.No.19234 of 2019.

¶12

A coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 29.11.2019 disposed of the said writ petition, directing implementation of the aforesaid interim order within a period of two (02) months from the date of communication of the order in the said writ petition. Alleging non-implementation of the said order, the present contempt case is filed.

¶13

Responding to the notices issued by this Court, a counter-affidavit deposed by the Special Chief Secretary to Government &CIP Industries and Commerce Department is filed. Paragraphs – 9 and 10 of the said counter-affidavit read as follows:

¶14

“9. In the Memo.No.10812/Estt./A1/2017, dated 10.01.2020, the 1^st respondent directed the 2^nd respondent to take immediate necessary action in the matter as per rules in force in the first instance and submit report to the Hon’ble APAT/APHC under marking a copy to Government. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedingsNo.22/ 2018/1031, Dt. 04.04.2021, regularizing the suspension period of the petitioner from 06.07.2021 to 03.03.2004 by sanctioning (90) days of HPL and (882) days of EOL comes on private affairs in terms of FR 54 B(7). The petitioner filed

¶15

¶16

Contempt Case No.182/2021 in W.P.No.19234/2019 for not implementing the orders of Hon’ble High Court.

¶17

10. The 1^st respondent vide Govt.Memo.No. 10812/ Estt/A1/2017, Dt.03.07.2021 directed the 2^nd respondent to fix the notional seniority of the petitioner, as per rules, in the cadre of Deputy Director, as he is the competent authority to fix the seniority in the DD cadre. The 2^nd respondent issued speaking orders to the petitioners vide his Memo.No.22/ 2018/1031, Dt. 14.09.2021 stating that the matter of seniority of the petitioner shall be taken up after conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against him, as per rules in vogue, since charge sheet is filed against the petitioner in the Hon’ble Spl.Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram and judgment is still awaited.”

¶18

As the 2^nd respondent herein issued speaking orders vide Memo No. 22/2018/1031, Dt. 14.09.2021 with regard to the second limb of the order also while implementing the first limb of the order, the contempt case is closed, however, with a liberty to the petitioner to assail the said speaking orders darted 14.09.2021.

¶19

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. Interim Orders, if any, stand vacated.

¶20

_________________________ JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶21

_______________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

Dt: 22.03.2022.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶26

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶28

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)

¶29

CONTEMPT CASE No.182 of 2021

¶30

Dt: 22.03.2022

¶31

G M Sreedhar v. Karikala Valavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G M Sreedhar v. Karikala Valavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seelam Satyanarayana Prasad, Vs Union of India

Dr.Ungarala Sai Sanjana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bellamkonda Eswaraiah Vs The High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Devalla Bhavitha Reddy Vs Smt. Poonam Malakondaiah

Paleti Srisha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Duvvuri Nithya Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh