Allowed¶29

Smt. G Jayalakshmi v. Kuna Sreerama Murthy

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Mar 2025CA/39/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt appeal; civil contempt; non-implementation of writ court directions; Old Pension Scheme versus Contributory Pension Scheme; contract teachers regularised in A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society; break in service in every academic year; Rule 17 Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules 1980; individual rejection orders dated 03.02.2023; C.C.No.6689 of 2022; W.P.No.41905 of 2015; contempt conviction and sentence set aside; High Court of Himachal Pradesh v. State of Himachal Pradesh CWP No.241/2019.

What did the court decide?

Both Contempt Appeals allowed and the Order of the Learned Single Judge dated 08.08.2023 in C.C.No.6689 of 2022 set aside; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. ¶29

Smt. G Jayalakshmi Vs Kuna Sreerama Murthy — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both Contempt Appeals allowed and the Order of the Learned Single Judge dated 08.08.2023 in C.C.No.6689 of 2022 set aside; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants violated the directions of the Learned Single Judge dated 08.04.2022 in W.P.No.41905 of 2015 so as to be guilty of contempt, given that individual orders dated 03.02.2023 were passed rejecting each respondent's claim for the Old Pension Scheme on the ground of break in service.

¶14

Court's answer

The respondents did not comply with the first part of the direction of the Learned Single Judge by producing material/documents establishing continuity in service; in the absence of such material, non-consideration of a common representation without documents cannot be treated as violation of the Court's directions.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Though the subsequent individual orders dated 03.02.2023 were filed in the Contempt Case and mentioned in the counter affidavit, the attention of the Learned Single Judge does not appear to have been drawn to them; he considered only the rejection memo dated 12.08.2022 and held the outright rejection without reasons to be a violation.

¶27

Key takeaways

In view of the subsequent individual orders dated 03.02.2023 setting out the period of service of each respondent and the break in service, it cannot be said that the appellants violated the Orders of the Court.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Appeals Nos. 38 & 39 of 2023 (Andhra Pradesh High Court, Division Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ.; per R. Raghunandan Rao, J.), decided 07.03.2025 — ALLOWED, setting aside the common order dated 08.08.2023 of the learned Single Judge in C.C.No.6689 of 2022 by which the appellants (Secretary of A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society and another official) were convicted of contempt for non-implementation of the judgment dated 08.04.2022 in W.P.No.41905 of 2015 and sentenced to one month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-. Held: (i) the respondents never produced the contract agreements, salary slips or other documents demonstrating continuity in service as required by the first limb of the direction, so failure to consider a bare representation unsupported by documents was not violation of the Court's directions; (ii) the individual orders dated 03.02.2023, which recorded a break in service in every academic year between contract appointment and regularization and rejected each respondent's Old Pension Scheme claim, showed compliance with the directions, but the Single Judge's attention was not drawn to them and he proceeded only on the rejection memo dated 12.08.2022. The writ court had applied Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and followed High Court of Himachal Pradesh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No.241/2019, dated 10.01.2020.

¶1

APHC010404832023

¶2

[3508]

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 38/2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri R. Pavana Murthy ...APPLICANT

¶10

AND

¶11

Kuna Sreerama Murthy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶12

CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 39/2023

¶13

Between:

¶14

Smt. G Jayalakshmi ...APPLICANT

¶15

AND Kuna Sreerama Murthy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Applicant:

¶16

1.C SUMON Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.UMASANKAR LOKANADHAM The Court made the following Common Judgment:

¶18

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶19

As both these Contempt Appeals arise out of a common order, dated 08.08.2023, in C.C.No.6689 of 2022, they are being disposed of, by way of this Common Judgment.

¶20

¶21

RRR,J& MRK,J C.A.Nos.38 & 39 of 2023

¶22

The respondents in these Contempt Appeals are persons, who had initially been appointed as teachers on contractual basis, in Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society. These respondents, who had been appointed as teachers in different faculties from 1996 to 2003 were subsequently regularized in their services.

¶23

The respondents approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.41905 of 2015, contending that, non-sanction of notional increments, pension and other pensions from the initial date of appointment of the petitioners and introduction of the Contributory Pension Scheme, by way of a Memo, dated 12.10.2015, is illegal, improper, unjust & arbitrary and for a declaration that the respondents are entitled to count their service, rendered as contract teachers, from their initial appointment and for consequential benefits.

¶24

The respondents, by the time the matter came up for hearing, had pressed for being included under the Old Pension Scheme as against the Contributory Pension Scheme, which was brought in by Memo, dated 12.10.2015.

¶25

A Learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of this Writ Petition, by an Order, dated 08.04.2022.

¶26

¶27

RRR,J& MRK,J C.A.Nos.38 & 39 of 2023

¶28

The Learned Single Judge applied Rule-17 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and following the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of High Court of Himachal Pradesh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, in CWP No.241/2019, dated 10.01.2020, had held that, the respondents were entitled to be included in the Old Pension Scheme, subject to the condition that the respondents are able to demonstrate that they had been discharging their duties without interruption of duty.

¶29

The operative part of the said Judgment contained in paragraph No.15, which is extracted hereunder:

¶30

“15. In view of my foregoing discussions, I declare that the employees whose services were engaged on contract basis prior to commencement of Contributory Pension Scheme and who are discharging their duties without interruption of duty, are entitled to the benefit of Old Pension Scheme, while holding that the Contributory Pension Scheme cannot be applied to those employees. In those circumstances, the petitioners are directed to submit their applications for consideration of their entitlement by applying Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and to claim benefit of Old Pension Scheme, the petitioners shall annex copies of their contract/agreement of service or any other document like salary slips, establishing their continuity in service, from the date of their joining till their services are regularized. On such production, the concerned authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioners, in view of the law declared by Division Bench of High Court of Himachal Pradesh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (referred supra) and extend the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to those employees who are able to establish that they are in service as on date of amendment and continuing in service. Consequently, the Memo in RC.No.Accts-III/CPS/4426/2014, dated 12.10.2015 is hereby set aside.”

¶31

The respondents, had thereafter, submitted a representation,

¶32

dated 20.07.2022, to the Secretary of the Society, for implementation of the directions of the Learned Single Judge, dated 08.04.2022. The Secretary of the Society, who is the appellant in C.A.No.38 of 2023, had responded to this representation, by a Memo, dated 12.08.2022. The appellant in C.A.No.38 of

¶33

¶34

RRR,J& MRK,J C.A.Nos.38 & 39 of 2023

¶35

2023, after extracting the Orders passed by the Learned Single Judge, had informed the respondents that it was not feasible to implement the Old Pension Scheme against the orders of the Government, dated 13.05.2019.

¶36

In a parallel proceeding, the appellant in C.A.No.39 of 2023, had addressed a letter to the appellant in C.A.No.38 of 2023, dated 28.01.2023, directing the appellant in C.A.No.38 of 2023 to examine the applications of the respondents as per the Orders of the Learned Single Judge.

¶37

Pursuant to these instructions, the appellant in C.A.No.38 of 2023, had passed individual orders, dated 03.02.2023, in the case of each of the respondents.

¶38

The appellant in C.A.No.38 of 2023, in each of the orders, examined the question of whether the concerned respondent, had continued in service without break from the date of the initial appointment on contract basis till regularization and found in each of the cases that there was a break in service in every academic year. On the ground that, there was such a break in service, the appellant in C.A.No.38 of 2023, had stated that the Old Pension Scheme cannot be implemented for the concerned respondent.

¶39

The respondents, in the meantime, had filed Contempt Case No.6689 of 2022, contending that the appellants had not taken any steps to implement the directions of the Learned Single Judge, dated 08.04.2022. This Contempt Case came to be filed on 30.12.2022.

¶40

¶41

RRR,J& MRK,J C.A.Nos.38 & 39 of 2023

¶42

The appellants, in their defense, before the learned Single Judge,

¶43

had contended that, the respondents had filed a representation, dated 20.07.2022, without enclosing the copies of their contract/agreement of service or any other document like salary slips, establishing their continuity in service on account of which an initial memo, dated 12.08.2022, has been issued. It was also contended that they had subsequently passed individual proceedings in respect of each of the respondents, dated 03.02.2023.

¶44

The learned Single Judge, had held that non-implementation of the orders, dated 08.04.2022, would amount to Contempt and the delayed implementation was sufficient to hold that there was violation of the Orders of the Court. The learned Single Judge, had also taken the view that the rejection of the representations of the respondents, by way of a one line order was neither fair nor in compliance of the directions of this Court.

¶45

On the basis of these findings, the learned Single Judge, had allowed the Contempt Case, holding the appellants guilty of Contempt of Court and sentenced them to simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) week.

¶46

Aggrieved by this Order, dated 08.08.2023, the appellants have moved these two Appeals.

¶47

¶48

RRR,J& MRK,J C.A.Nos.38 & 39 of 2023

¶49

Sri C. Sumon, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would

¶50

contend that the Learned Single Judge has not taken into account the individual orders, dated 03.02.2023, passed by the appellant in C.A.No.38 of 2023, wherein the regularization of each of the respondents was rejected individually, on the ground that, there was a break in service of the concerned respondent from the date of appointment on contract basis till regularization and thereafter. He would submit that this Order is in compliance with the directions of this Court and there was no violation of the Orders of this Court.

¶51

He would further submit that the delay, if any, in passing the orders of rejection was only on account of the respondents not submitting the necessary documents for consideration. Learned counsel would also contend that the Order of the Learned Single Judge, dated 08.04.2022, was in two parts. Under the first part, the respondents were required to produce all the necessary details to demonstrate continuity in service. It is only thereafter, that the second part of the directions, namely, to the respondents, to consider such applications, would arise. He would submit that the appellants, despite nonsubmission of necessary documents by the respondents had taken up consideration of the cases of the respondents.

¶52

The learned counsel would also submit that, in such circumstances, there was no violation of the directions of this Court, muchless, willful violation of the Orders of this Court.

¶53

¶54

RRR,J& MRK,J C.A.Nos.38 & 39 of 2023

¶55

Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf

¶56

of Sri Umasankar Lokanadham, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the Orders of the Learned Single Judge that the appellants would have to look into the break in service after regularization of the alleged break in service prior to regularization is not relevant for the purposes of deciding the regularization of the respondents for payment of pension under the Old Pension Scheme.

¶57

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would also contend that the orders passed by the appellant in C.A.No.38 of 2023, except rejecting the applications of the respondents, has not gone into the question of whether the respondents are entitled to pension under the Old Pension Scheme or under the new Contributory Pension Scheme. The fact, that the said issue has not been answered by the appellants, is sufficient to hold that there is a violation of the directions of this Court.

¶58

It is also contended that, in any event, the Memo of 2017, under which the Contributory Pension Scheme was sought to be applied to the respondents, had also been set aside by the Learned Single Judge and in view of the matter, there is no option to the appellants except granting pension under the Old Pension Scheme to the respondents.

¶59

CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT:-

¶60

The case of the respondents, in the Writ Petition, was that they are entitled for the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme and should be paid

¶61

¶62

RRR,J& MRK,J C.A.Nos.38 & 39 of 2023

¶63

under the said scheme and not under the subsequent Contributory Pension Scheme. The Learned Single Judge took the view that the respondents would be entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, if they had continuity in service from the date of being appointed as contract basis till their services were regularized. The Learned Single Judge, had then observed that the necessary documentation and material to hold that the respondents had continuity of service, had not been placed before the Court. In those circumstances, the Learned Single Judge had directed the respondents to submit their applications for considering their entitlement to the Old Pension Scheme by annexing copies of their contract/agreement of service or any other document like salary slips, establishing their continuity in service. On such production, the concerned authority was to consider the case of the respondents and extend the Old Pension Scheme to those employees who are able to establish their continuity in service.

¶64

The said Judgment required the respondents to file a representation along with necessary documents, demonstrating their continuity in service. Upon production of such documents, the appropriate authority was to consider the case of the respondents and to give the benefit of Old Pension Scheme, to such respondents who could demonstrate continuity of service.

¶65

The respondents, do not appear to have complied with the first part of the direction of the Learned Single Judge in as much as they had not

¶66

¶67

RRR,J& MRK,J C.A.Nos.38 & 39 of 2023

¶68

produced any material or documents, as required under the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge. In the absence of such material, non consideration of a common representation, without any documents being supplied, cannot be treated as violation of the directions of the Court.

¶69

Initially, the appellant in C.A.No.38 of 2023 had issued a memo, dated 12.08.2022, rejecting the representation. Subsequently, the appellant, in C.A.No.39 of 2023 had directed the appellant in C.A.No.38 of 2023 to examine the applications of the respondents, as per the Orders of the Learned Single Judge. Thereupon, the appellant in C.A.No.38 of 2023 had considered each of the cases of the respondents, on an individual basis, and had held, by way of separate orders, in respect of each respondents, that none of the respondents had continuity of service to be given the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.

¶70

Though, the subsequent individual Orders, dated 03.02.2023, were filed in the Contempt Case, along with a mention of the said orders being made, in the counter affidavit of the appellant, in C.A.No.38 of 2023, the attention of the Learned Single Judge does not appear to have been drawn to these Orders. On account of this reason, the Learned Single Judge had considered the order of rejection, dated 12.08.2022 only and had held that the outright rejection of the representation of the respondents without reasons, was a violation of the Orders of the Court.

¶71

¶72

RRR,J& MRK,J C.A.Nos.38 & 39 of 2023

¶73

In view of the subsequent, individual orders, dated 03.02.2023,

¶74

setting out the period of service of each of the respondents and break in service, it cannot be said that the appellants herein have violated the Orders of the Court.

¶75

In the circumstances, these Contempt Appeals are allowed setting aside the Order of the Learned Single Judge, dated 08.08.2023.

¶76

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

¶77

closed.

¶78

_______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶79

______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J

¶80

Date:07.03.2025 BSM/KPV

¶81

¶82

RRR,J& MRK,J C.A.Nos.38 & 39 of 2023

¶83

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶84

AND

¶85

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶86

CONTEMPT APPEAL Nos:38 & 39 of 2023

¶87

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶88

07.03.2025

¶89

BSM/KPV

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common order dated 08.08.2023 of the learned Single Judge in C.C.No.6689 of 2022 allowing the Contempt Case, holding the appellants guilty of Contempt of Court and sentencing them to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.1000/- (default: one week simple imprisonment); set aside by this Court.¶15
Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh · 08.08.2023
Prior proceeding
Respondents (contract teachers later regularised in A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society) approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad by W.P.No.41905 of 2015 challenging non-sanction of notional increments/pension and introduction of the Contributory Pension Scheme by Memo dated 12.10.2015, seeking declaration of entitlement to count contract service from initial appointment.¶3
Prior proceeding
Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by order dated 08.04.2022, applying Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and following the Himachal Pradesh High Court decision, holding respondents entitled to the Old Pension Scheme subject to demonstrating uninterrupted discharge of duties, directing production of continuity documents, and setting aside the Memo dated 12.10.2015.¶5
Prior proceeding
Respondents submitted representation dated 20.07.2022 to the Secretary of the Society for implementation of the directions dated 08.04.2022; the Secretary (appellant in C.A.No.38 of 2023) responded by Memo dated 12.08.2022 stating it was not feasible to implement the Old Pension Scheme against the Government orders dated 13.05.2019.¶8
Prior proceeding
Appellant in C.A.No.39 of 2023 addressed letter dated 28.01.2023 to the appellant in C.A.No.38 of 2023 directing examination of the respondents' applications as per the Single Judge's orders.¶9
Prior proceeding
Appellant in C.A.No.38 of 2023 passed individual orders dated 03.02.2023 for each respondent, finding a break in service in every academic year between contract appointment and regularization, and declining the Old Pension Scheme accordingly.¶10
Prior proceeding
Respondents filed Contempt Case No.6689 of 2022 on 30.12.2022 alleging non-implementation of the directions dated 08.04.2022; the learned Single Judge held non-implementation and delayed implementation amounted to contempt and convicted the appellants.¶12

Smt. G Jayalakshmi v. Kuna Sreerama Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. G Jayalakshmi v. Kuna Sreerama Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khandavalli Nagalakshmi Kumari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.DodIa Dairy Limited, Vs The Additional Commissioner (State Tax)

Sabir Sew and Prasad Joint Venture Vs the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax

Ramalakshmamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Peetani Divya Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri R. Pavana Murthy Vs Kuna Sreerama Murthy