Sri v.L.S.N.Murthy, Vs Smt. B. Udaya Lakshmi

SRI V.L.S.N.MURTH Y , S/O. LATE LAXMIPATHI, AGED A BOUT 66 YEARS, LECTURER (RETIRED), (NOBLE COLLEGE) R/O. FLAT NO. 302, SS ADITYA S R EE MANYA APTS RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, KONDAPUR, HYDER A BAD.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

SMT B UDAYA LA K SHMI, COMMISSIONER AND DIRE C TOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUC A TION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA P RADESH, NAMPALLY, HYDER A BAD.

¶14

DR POLA BHASKA R , COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYA W ADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT R 2 IMP L EDED AS PER COURT ORDE R DT.16/09/2021 VIDE IA NO.2 OF 2 0 21 IN CC NO 860 OF 2016

¶15

SRI NARAYAN BHA R ATH GUPTA, PRESENT INCUMBENT OFFICER, COMMISSIONER, C O LLEGIATE EDUCATION. R 3 IS IMPLEADED AS SUO MOTO AS P ER COURT ORDER DATED 11.12.2 0 25 IN CC NO-860 OF 2016

¶16

...CONTEMNOR(S):

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.ADAPA RAMYA SAHITHI NAIDU

¶19

2

¶20

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶21

1.K V RAGHU VEER

¶22

2.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP)

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

ORAL ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned Senior Counsel, appearing through online on behalf of Ms. A. Ramya Sahithi Naidu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Raghu Veer, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.

¶26

The present Contempt Case is filed complaining of inaction on the part of the Respondents in respect of the Order rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 18.10.2012 in W.P.No.21814 of 2001.

¶27

The Operative portion of the Order of this Court dated 18.10.2012 is usefully extracted hereunder.

¶28

“The impugned proceedings dated 5.2.2000 however reflect that the Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education did not consider the petitioner's request for salary during the study leave period in the light of G.O.Ms.No. 208 dated 29.6.1999. There is not even a mention of the said G.O in the body of the impugned proceedings. Though the petitioner specifically raised the issue of applicability of the said G.O in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the counter of the Joint Director does not address this aspect comprehensively. While it is admitted on the one hand that study leave was granted to the petitioner under the G.O, there is no explanation thereafter as to how his request was rejected on the ground that he was not selected under a FIP, when the same is not even mentioned in the G.O. Once it is admitted that G.O.Ms.No.208 dated 29.6.1999 governed the situation and had applicability to the petitioner, his request for salary during the study leave period ought to have been considered in terms of Clause 20 of the said G.O.

¶29

The rejection of his request as embodied in the impugned proceedings, dated 5.2.2000, relying on wholly extraneous considerations, therefore cannot be sustained.

¶30

3

¶31

proceedings are accordingly set aside. The Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education is directed to re-consider the matter afresh in the light of Clause 20 of G.O.Ms.No.208 dated 29.6.1999 and take an appropriate decision afresh in accordance with law and duly communicate the same to the petitioner by way of a reasoned order. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”

¶32

(emphasis supplied)

¶33

The highlighted portion of the above extract would clearly indicate that this Court has observed that the request of the Petitioner ought to have been considered in accordance with Clause 20 of G.O.Ms.No.208 dated 29.06.1999.

¶34

Though the present Contempt Case has been filed complaining of inaction on the part of the Respondents in passing a Speaking Order, Respondent No.1 has filed Counter-Affidavit on 24.08.2021. Respondent No.2 has filed Counter-Affidavit on 11.10.2021 and Additional Counter-Affidavit on 01.12.2021. Along with both the Counter-Affidavits, the Speaking Order passed by Respondent No.2 dated 11.08.2021 has been filed. It is noticed that Respondent No.2 had filed another Affidavit on 19.12.2025.

¶35

Since the Speaking Order has already been passed, referring to various Proceedings, this Court is of the opinion that, in Contempt Jurisdiction, this Court cannot decide the correctness of the Proceedings of the Respondents dated 11.08.2021.

¶36

Since the learned Single Judge has passed Order directing the Respondents to pass a Speaking Order within six (06) weeks in the light of Clause 20 of G.O.Ms.No.208 dated 29.06.1999., this Court is of the considered opinion that there has been a gross delay on the part of the Respondents in passing the Speaking Order on 11.08.2021.

¶37

For causing such an enormous delay, Respondent No.1, who was at the helm of affairs at that point of time, shall alone be held responsible for

¶38

4

¶39

committing contempt of Court, whereas the subsequent Official Respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot be held liable for contempt. Hence, it is ordered accordingly.

¶40

In any case, Respondent No.2, who has assumed Office on 21.06.2021 had thereafter passed the Order on 11.08.2021, cannot be held accountable for the enormous delay that occurred from 01.12.2012 up to 11.08.2021.

¶41

Respondent No.1 is held to be guilty of contempt of this Court, and therefore, he is directed to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- to the Petitioner from out of his pocket within four (04) weeks from today, failing which he shall suffer imprisonment for a period of two (02) months. Since the Speaking Order has been passed on 11.08.2021, this Court is of the opinion that the Order of this Court dated 18.10.2012 has been complied with delay as indicated above.

¶42

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶43

The Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the Order passed by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, dated 11.08.2021, if so advised, subject to all just exceptions.

¶44