Disposed

P Nageswara Reddy v. N v Surendra Babu

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jul 2022CC/285/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held a contempt case closed by granting liberty for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum regarding notional increments. The court dismissed the reliance on a specific precedent as not applicable to the current facts.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to agitate grievance for notional increments before the appropriate forum; contempt case closed.

P Nageswara Reddy Vs N v Surendra Babu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No.285 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish respondent Nos.1 to 3 for willful disobedience of order, dated 22.09.2015, passed in W.P.No.17895 of 2001 of this Court wherein the said writ petition was allowed holding that the petitioner is entitled to back wages for the period he was out of service.

¶5

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined in the service of the respondent Corporation as a Conductor in the year 1984. He was elected as Deputy Secretary of the Corporation, National Mazdoor Union. After conducting an enquiry on certain allegations, the petitioner was removed from service by the Depot Manager vide order, dated 25.11.1997. Initially, he filed a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the Labour Court. A dispute came to be raised before the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.145 of 1998, wherein the Tribunal directed the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without back wages. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.17895 of 2001 wherein this Court, after considering the material, allowed the writ petition to the extent of back wages for the period he was out of service. Now, the present Contempt Case is filed alleging that the notional increments, which the petitioner is entitled to for the period he was out of service, are not paid to the petitioner.

¶6

¶7

Sri K.Rama Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly submits that once the petitioner is reinstated into service with continuity of service and back wages, the petitioner is entitled to notional increments for the period he was out of service and a direction to that effect may be given to the respondents.

¶8

Sri N.Srihari, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C., submits that in the absence of any direction in the order impugned, payment of notional increments for the period the petitioner was out of service would not arise.

¶9

A perusal of the material on record would show that the direction given by this Court in the impugned order was only for payment of back wages for the period the petitioner was out of service. Though learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment in Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. vs. P.Yadagiri and others [judgment, dated 28.09.2016, of the common High Court in W.P.No.28690 of 2016], but the same, in my view, may not be of much help. In the said case, the Court was dealing with payment of revised pay scales consequent to reinstatement into service pursuant to an award passed.

¶10

At this point of time, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the back wages are paid to the petitioner and the dispute is only with regard to granting notional increments for the period he was out of service, the petitioner may be permitted to agitate his grievance before the appropriate forum without insisting for the same in this contempt case.

¶11

¶12

The same is not opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C.

¶13

Having regard to the above, this Contempt Case is closed granting liberty as sought for by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Contempt Case shall stand closed.

¶15

_ ______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

Date : 22.7.2022 AMD

213

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶20

CONTEMPT CASE No.285 OF 2019

¶21

Date : 22.7.2022

¶22

AMD

P Nageswara Reddy v. N v Surendra Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Nageswara Reddy v. N v Surendra Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. v.Papulamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Geeda Koteswara Rao Vs Govt Of Andara Pradesh

Kola Durga Prasad Vs Gudlavalleru Gram Panchayats, represented by its

G Sudha Rani Vs Kruthika Sukla

Borra Anka Naga Lakshmi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

C. Ramu, S/o. China Peddanna, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.