Executive Engineer alleged APGENCO officials wilfully disobeyed a Court order directing consideration of his promotion representation by promoting a seniority-superior candidate first. The Court found orders were served only after the vacancy was filled, no violation occurred, and closed the contempt case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 807 OF 2019
Contempt Case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of ContemptofCourtsAct 1971 pleased to punish the 1®* and 2^^ Respondent for willful violation and deliberate disobedience to the Order of this Hon'ble Court dated 27.08.2019 in W.P. No.11269 of 2019.
Between:
H. Vijaya Sarathi, S/o. H. Lakshipathi, Age: 57 years, Occ. Executive Engineer (Civil),R/o Rayalaseema Thermal Power Plant, V.V Reddy Nagar, Kadapa District, A.P. ...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. NITESH
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M. VIDYASAGAR,(STANDINGCOUNSEL FOR APGENCO)
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.807 OF 2019
ORDER:
Heard Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner and Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
- The petitioner, who is working as an Executive Engineer in the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited, had approached this Court by way of W.P.No. 11269 of 2019 with the grievance that he wasnot
to the post of being considered for promotion Superintending Engineer (Civil) which had fallen vacant on the superannuation of one Sri Murali Mohan.
RRR,J CC No.807 of 2019
- The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Contempt Case contending that the respondents, being aware of the orders of this Court, proceeded to promote another person to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil), by proceedings dated 30.08.2019, and the same is clearly violative of theorders of this Court. The petitioner also contends that his application was not considered till 01.11.2019 and the same is also beyond the period of three weeks granted by this Court.
- Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the representation of the petitioner dated 03.09.2019 in which the representation dated 31.08.2019 has been mentioned.He would contend that the respondents were represented by a learned counsel when the orders were passed by thisCourt on 27.08.2019 and the petitioner cannot contend ignorance of the said orders while passing the proceedings dated 30.08.2019.
- The respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit in which it was
2
RRRJ CC No.807 of 2019
contended that a copy of the order of the Court was furnished to the respondents only on 25.09.2019 andthe respondents had thereafter disposed of the said representation by proceedings dated 01.11.2019, negativing the request of the petitioner.
- The stand of the respondents is that the vacant post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) was filled up through the promotion of one Sri Y. Satyanarayana Chowdary, by way of proceedings dated 30.08.2019, and the respondent No.2 also took the contention that there were other candidates who were higher in the senioritylist who were also eligible for promotion and as such thecaseof the petitioner could not be accepted and that the caseofthe petitioner for promotion would be taken up as per the seniority list and subject to the availability of vacanciesin the cadre of Superintending Engineer (Civil), in thecourse of regular promotions.
- Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order directing consideration of the case of the petitioner with thefurther condition that no promotions should be carried outwithout
3
RRR,J CC No.807 of 2019
considering the case of the petitioner was passed on 27.08.2019 in the presence of the learned StandingCounsel for the Corporation and as such the respondents are deemed to have notice of the order and promoting another person without considering the case of the petitionerisin violation of the directions of this Court. Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner would also depend upon the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, in which it was stated that orders of this Courtwas received only on 25.09.2019. He would submit that thesaid statement is incorrect in view of the proceedings dated 01.11.2019 wherein the request of the petitioner hadbeen turned down. These proceedings referred to the representation of the petitioner dated 31.08.2019 andthe fact that the order of this Court dated 27.08.2019 was annexed in the said representation. He would submitthat the variation in the pleadings clearly shows the attitudeof the respondents in seeking to scuttle the orders ofthis Court. The learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the HonTile High Court of Bombay in thecase of Ishwar Naidu iind others vs. Municipal Corporation
4
RRR,J CC No.807 of 2019
of Greater Bombay and others^ to contend that thereis deemed notice to the party when orders are passed bythe Court in the presence of the learned counsel of such party.
- Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, as can be seenfrom the record, the chronology of events was that ordersofthis Court were passed on 27.08.2019; the vacancy to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) was filled up by proceedings of the respondents dated 30.08.2019; the representation of the petitioner along with a copyofthe order of this Court was served on the respondents on 31.08.2019 and the said representation, in complianceof the directions of this Court, was disposed of on 01.11.2019 informing the petitioner that persons senior to himhad been promoted and that his case would be considered,in accordance with the seniority list, as and when vacancies arise. He would submit that the contention in the additional counter affidavit that the order of this Court was received on 25.09.2019 is in relation to the formal order copy received from the Court and the same is being readoutof
1997 CriU 7212
RRR,J CC No.807 of 2019
context and in any event, is at best, inaccurate drawing up of pleadings and nothing more.
6
RRR,J CC No.807 of 2019
) >
RRR,J CC No.807 of 2019
accepting such a broad proposition, especially whenthe consequences in such cases would be penal in nature.The delay in disposing the representation of the Petitioner, beyond the three week period stipulated by this court can be condoned as the delay is not a long delay and some leeway may be given to the respondents, on account of administrative exigencies.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIONickiFICER
Trt ssb
HIGH COURT
DATED:03/01/2024
ORDER
CC.No.807 of 2019
CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents violated the Court's order dated 27.08.2019 by promoting another candidate before considering the petitioner's representation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ishwar Naidu and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and othersDistinguished¶13
1997 CriLJ 7212 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
H. Vijaya Sarathi
Sri B. Sreedhar
Sri M. Sujaya Kumar
R Raghunandan Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
