Rakesh Kashyap Vs G Ayyavaraiah

Appeal under Section 15 of Letter Patent Act, preferred against the Order dated 24-01-2025 passed in Contempt Case No.6190 of 2022, on the file of the learned Single Judge of this Court, which preferred against the Order dated 06-05-2022 passed in W.P.No.34888 of 2011 on the file of the learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶12

Between:

¶13

Rakesh Kashyap, Chairman, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Dhobi Ghat Road, P.B.No.65, Near Mariyapuram Church, Opp:Officers Club, Kadapa-516 001.

¶14

•■■Appellant/Respondent

¶15

AND

¶16

G.Ayyavaraiah, S/o.Late Subbaiah, aged about 71 years, R/o.8-3 214/8, Srinivasa Colony, Hyderabad.

¶17

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶18

"
■''•i
A
%
?
'■' V'..'
4-
V 'i V;

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order of the learned Singe Judge passed in Contempt Case No.6190 of 2022 dated 24-01-2025.

¶21

Counsel for Appellant : MS. V.UMA DEVI

¶22

Counsel for Respondent : MS. SODUM ANVESHA

¶23

The Court made the following JUDGMENT :

¶24

APHC010130712025

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶26

AT AMARAVATI

¶27

[3545]

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶33

LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO: 1/2025

¶34

Between:

¶35

1.RAKESH KASHYAP, , D/O.RAMAVATH SHANKAR NAYAK, W/0.^LATE V.SRINU NAIK, AGED 27 YEARS, OCC ANGANWADI WORKER, R/O.D.NO.11-37, NEHRU NAGAR THANDA, DURGI MANUAL, PALNADU DISTRIC

¶36

...APPELLANT

¶37

AND

¶38

1.G AYYAVARAIAH, S/o. Late Subbaiah, aged about 71 years, R/o/8-3214/8, Srinivasa Colony, Hyderabad.

¶39

...RESPONDENT

¶40

pleased to set-aside the order dated 24-01-2025 passedⁱⁿ Contempt Case No.6190 of 2022 and pass

¶41

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶42

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the order of the learned Singe Judge passed in Contempt Case No.6190 of 2022 dated 24.01.2025 and to pass

¶43

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶44

1.VUMADEVI

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶46

1.SODUM ANVESHA

¶47

The Court made the following:

¶48

hi

¶49

2

¶50

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶51

&

¶52

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶53

LETTER PATENT APPEAL No.1 of 2025

¶54

jyjDGMENT:('Per/-/oA7’/?/e Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

¶55

This Letter Patent Appeal is filed against the order dated 24.01.2025 in C.C.No.6190 of 2022.

¶56

Heard Ms. V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the appellant^and Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶57

Originally, the respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.34888 of 2011 before this Court and the same was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 06.05.2022. Relevant portion of the said order is extracted herein under;-

¶58

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings in Ref.No.799/STF/0119/Gratuity/2011, dated 22.07.2011 issued by the respondent Bank. Further, the respondent Bank is directed to pay the gratuity to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶59

Complaining the wilful disobedience of the said order, the respondent had filed a case in C.C.No.6190 of 2022. After hearing both sides, the said Contempt Case is disposed of on 24.01.2025. Relevant portion of the

¶60

said order is extracted herein under:-

¶61

3

¶62

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the entire materiat on record,^thisCourtis of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for interest on delayed payment of gratuity. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Contempt Case, directing the respondent-^bankto pay the interest amount of 8% per annum from the due^dateof actual payment to till the date of payment, \A/ithin a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this^order.”

¶63

Aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2025 of the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case, the present Letter Patent Appeal^isfiled.

¶64

Having considered the submissions of the respective^counsels and on perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge which is impugned in this Letter Patent Appeal, it appears that the learned Single Judge came to an opinion that the writ petitioner is entitled for interest on delayed payment of gratuity. If the learned Single Judge came to an opinion^{thattheintereston} delayed payment of gratuity is not paid as per the^{orderdated06.05.2022in} W.P.No.34888 of 2011, the alleged contemnors ought to have been punished by invoking the provisions of the contempt of Courts Act. But issuing further directions to the respondent while disposing the Contempt Case is not permissible under the provisions of the contempt of^CourtsAct.

¶65

In our opinion, while dealing the Contempt Cases, if^theCourt is not satisfied with the compliance of the order, the contemnors have to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. If Court satisfied that the order of the Court is complied with, it has to close the Contempt Case. But the Contempt Court is not empowered to pass any^{furtherdirectionswhile} disposing the contempt cases. Admittedly, in this case, while disposing the

¶66

4

¶67

contempt case, certain directions were issued to the respondents which were not permissible under law. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge in C.C.No.6190 of 202, dated 24.01.2025 is liable to be set aside.

¶68

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order of the Court is complied with. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent is contending that the order of the Court is not complied with till date with true letter and spirit.

¶69

In view of the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels on either side about the compliance of the writ order, it is appropriate and reasonable to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in this Contempt Case and remand the matter to the Contempt Court for adjudication in accordance with law.

¶70

Accordingly, without going into the further merits of the case, this

¶71

Letter Patent Appeal is allowed with the following^directions;- i) The order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.01.2025 in C.C.No.6190 of 2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Contempt Court for adjudication in accordance with law.

¶72

It is made it clear that we are not expressing any opinion about the entitlement of the interest to the writ petitioner as per the provisions of the Gratuity Act.

¶73

yi

¶74

5

¶75