Disposed

G.Ramesh Reddy, v. M.Vijay Kumar

Andhra Pradesh HC26 Dec 2024CC/3451/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt case over implementation of an earlier court order reinstating the petitioner after dismissal. The respondents' compliance proceedings required the petitioner to declare he would not claim back wages for the dismissal period. The court held this infringed his right to pursue a pending writ appeal, directed them not to insist on that declaration, ordered fresh proceedings within one week,

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to insist on the back-wages declaration in condition No.2 of proceedings dated 18.12.2024 and to issue appropriate proceedings in favour of the petitioner within one week.

G.Ramesh Reddy, Vs M.Vijay Kumar — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010366772024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3451/2024

Between:

G.ramesh Reddy,

...PETITIONER

AND

M Vijay Kumar and Others

¶11

...CONTEMNOR(S)

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶13

1.P L NARASIMHA RAO

¶14

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶15

1.KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI

¶16

The Court made the following Order:

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the contemnors submit

¶18

that the order passed by this Court has been complied with and the relevant proceedings dated 18.12.2024, have been placed on record.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in compliance with the orders, the respondents have set up certain onerous conditions that would go against the legal rights of the petitioner.

¶20

¶21

As seen from the condition No.2 as mentioned in the proceedings dated 18.12.2024, a declaration is sought from the petitioner that he would not claim back wages and other benefits in relation to the period of dismissal. Insofar as this condition is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed a writ appeal, which is pending consideration. In view of the same, the condition No.2 would go against the legal right of the petitioner in filing an appeal against the order of this Court.

¶22

Considering the same, the respondents are hereby directed

¶23

not to insist on the declaration as mentioned at serial No.2 in the proceedings dated 18.12.2024, pertaining to the declaration of the petitioner to the effect of not claiming the back wages.

¶24

With these observations, the respondents shall comply with

¶25

the order. The respondents are directed to issue appropriate proceedings in favor of the petitioner within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of this order.

¶26

Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

¶28

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶29

stand closed.

¶30

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶31

Date: 27.12.2024 Note: Issue CC by 28.12.2024 NKA

¶32

¶33

103

¶34

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶35

Contempt Case No.3451 of 2024 Date: 27.12.2024

¶36

NKA

G.Ramesh Reddy, v. M.Vijay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Ramesh Reddy, v. M.Vijay Kumar

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

Y.Chinna Rao, Vs The Project Officer, I.T.D.A

Smt. G. Anupama, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Medical & Health Department

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, W.G. District & Another Vs Presiding Officer, Hon'Ble Labour Court, Guntur Dist & Anr.

Dasari Malakondaiah, Prakasam District Vs Chairman &M.D.,Apsrtc.,Hyderabad & 2 Others

K. Balakrishna Vs The Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State

U.Bharathi,Anantapur,& 24 Vs Apcpdcl,Chairman,Md,&Anot