Sri Jakkam Veeraiah v. Government of India, Ministry of Labour

Telangana HC10 Dec 2010CC/1508/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the Court held that the respondents complied with its prior order by directing the petitioner to appear before an Apex Medical Board, which subsequently issued an age assessment report. Consequently, the Court found nothing survived for further adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Closed the contempt case as the order dated 23.06.2010 was complied with by the issue of the age assessment report.

Sri Jakkam Veeraiah Vs Government of India… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No.1508 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This contempt case is filed complaining willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the order dated 23.06.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.5125 of 2010 in W.P.No.3940 of 2010, which reads as under:

¶5

“It appears, the earlier writ petition i.e. W.P.No.16650 of 2009 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 23.10.2009 directing the respondents to constitute the Apex Medical Board for examining and deciding the age of the petitioner.

¶6

According to the respondents, a notice was issued to the petitioner but he refused to receive the same. In such circumstances and as the petitioner did not appear before the Medical Board, he was not examined by it. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent says that the petitioner will not be given any further opportunity since he did not appear before the Medical Board, which was constituted on 29.10.2009. However, the fact remains that though the abovementioned writ petition was disposed of on 23.10.2009, the said order was made available to him only on 30.10.2009 i.e., one day after constitution of the Medical Board. Even otherwise, nothing prevented the Management of the second respondent from asking the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board on any other date. The second respondent did not choose to do so. Further, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the second respondent that since the petitioner rejected the notice purported to have been issued to him for examination by the Medical Board, no further opportunity would be given to him. This approach of the second respondent is pedantic and not natural.

¶7

Under those circumstances, there shall be interim stay as prayed for.”

¶8

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in compliance of the aforesaid orders, the 2^nd respondent, by his letter dated 09.11.2010, directed the petitioner to appear before the Apex Medical Board at Main Hospital, Kothagudem, on 11.11.2010 at 8.30 a.m., with all documents available with him in support of his claim regarding age, and thereupon, the Apex Medical Board, after considering the statement of the petitioner, the assessment of the Board and the X-ray findings, issued age assessment report dated 11.11.2010, assessing the age of the petitioner as 61 years as on 11.11.2010. A copy of the said age assessment report is placed on record for perusal of this Court.

¶9

In view of the above, nothing survives in this contempt case for further adjudication.

¶10

The contempt case is, accordingly, closed.

¶11

_____________ C.V.RAMULU,J

¶12

10.12.2010 v v

Sri Jakkam Veeraiah v. Government of India, Ministry of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jakkam Veeraiah v. Government of India, Ministry of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Venkata Sudheer Reddy, Vs The District Collector

Bathula Ramana , Venkateswara Rao S/o Veeraju Vs Andhra PRadesh Electricity Power Distribution

Dakshina bharatha Hindi Prachara Sabha ( Andhr), Vs Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal

M/s. Rita Industrial Corporation Limited, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

C H Rasheed(died) Vs The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Vedicherla Sreenadha Reddy Vs Sri Sai Baba Avenue Development Society