Disposed¶31

Sykam Kamalakar Rao v. M v Seshagiri Babu IAS

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Apr 2026CC/1013/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of Courts Act 1971 Sections 10-12; non-compliance of order dated 23.09.2025 in WP No. 25588 of 2025; A.P. Labour Welfare Board; retirement benefits arrears and pay revision; Rs.81,00,000/- approximately paid; representations dated 11.09.2024 and 10.02.2025; reference to WP No. 2897 of 2009 (28.07.2015) confirmed in WA No. 914 of 2015 (03.07.2023); contempt case closed without sanction; liberty to file independent writ for differential quantum; Nyapathy Vijay J; Andhra Pradesh High Court Amaravati; 20.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

No punitive sanction imposed; Contempt Case closed, with liberty left to the Petitioner to pursue an independent Writ Petition regarding the differential quantum of amount. ¶31

Sykam Kamalakar Rao Vs M v Seshagiri Babu IAS — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No punitive sanction imposed; Contempt Case closed, with liberty left to the Petitioner to pursue an independent Writ Petition regarding the differential quantum of amount.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondents committed contempt by disobedience/non-compliance of the Order dated 23.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.25588 of 2025. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

As substantial amounts were paid to the Petitioner pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the Contempt Case is closed without any punitive sanction against the Respondents.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner is left free to pursue an independent Writ Petition regarding the differential quantum of amount which he claims is due to him; the question of any further entitlement was not adjudicated in this Contempt Case.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Case No.1013 of 2026, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), decided on 20.04.2026 by Nyapathy Vijay, J. Filed by Sykam Kamalakar Rao, retired Typewriting Instructor, O/o the Welfare Commissioner, A.P. Labour Welfare Board, under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 against (i) M V Seshagiri Babu IAS, Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories Department, and (ii) A Ganesh IAS, Commissioner, A.P. Labour Welfare Board, for non-compliance of the Order dated 23.09.2025 in W.P.No.25588 of 2025, wherein the Respondents had been directed to consider the Petitioner's representations dated 11.09.2024 and 10.02.2025 in the light of the orders in W.P.No.2897 of 2009 dated 28.07.2015 as confirmed in W.A.No.914 of 2015 dated 03.07.2023, and to release the admissible arrears of salary, pay revision benefits and retirement benefits within three months. Respondents' counsel submitted that pursuant to those orders approximately Rs.81,00,000/- was paid under various heads of retirement benefits; Petitioner's counsel contended that a greater amount was due and that compliance was not in the strict sense. Holding that substantial amounts had been paid, the Court closed the Contempt Case without sanction, expressly leaving the Petitioner free to pursue an independent Writ Petition regarding the differential quantum claimed. No order as to costs; pending applications, if any, stand closed.

¶1

APHC010106942026

¶2

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

¶3

[3460]

¶4

MONDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1013/2026

¶6

Between:

¶7

SYKAM KAMALAKAR RAO, S/O. S. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, TYPEWRITING INSTRUCTOR (RETIRED), O/O. THE WELFARE COMMISSIONER, A.P. LABOUR WELFARE BOARD, VIJAYAWADA, R/O. FLAT NO. 501, SMR VINAY CLASSIC, NEAR GOOGLE OFFICE, HYDERABAD.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

M V SESHAGIRI BABU IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND FACTORIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. AP.

¶11

A GANESH IAS, , COMMISSIONER OF A.P. LABOUR WELFARE BOARD, D.NO. 33- 7-6 AND 33-7-14, PAPAIAH STREET, SEETHARAMPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 002

¶12

...CONTEMNOR(S):

¶13

Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to punish the respondents under Contempt of Courts act for disobedience of the orders passed in WP No. 25588 of 2025 dated 23.09.2025 and pass

¶14

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶15

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 Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.V SAI KUMAR

¶17

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶18

1.RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶22

Contempt Case No.1013 of 2026

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The present Contempt Case is filed for non-compliance of the Order, dated 23.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25588 of 2025.

¶25

This Court after considering the submissions on both sides has disposed of the aforesaid Writ Petition with the following directions as extracted under:-

¶26

“The Respondents are directed to consider the representations of the Petitioner dated 11.09.2024 and 10.02.2025 in the light of the orders passed in W.P.No.2897 of 2009 dated 28.07.2015 as confirmed in W.A.No.914 of 2015 dated 03.07.2023 and release the admissible arrears of salary, pay revision benefits and retirement benefits within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that pursuant to

¶28

the orders passed by this Court, the case of the Petitioner was considered in terms of the orders passed by this Court, and an amount of Rs.81,00,000/- approximately was paid under various heads of retirement benefits.

¶29

Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is entitled to a greater amount than that was granted by the Respondents and further contends that the orders passed by this Court were not complied with in a strict sense.

¶30

¶31

Considering the submissions of learned counsel appearing on both sides, and as substantial amounts were paid to the Petitioner, this Contempt Case is closed, leaving it open to the Petitioner to pursue an independent Writ Petition regarding the differential quantum of amount, which is said to be entitled to the Petitioner.

¶32