The Court closed the contempt case filed for willful disobedience. Since the respondents issued proceedings to engage the petitioner's services and considered his case, they had not disobeyed the interim order.
The contempt case is closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
CONTEMPT CASE No.263 of 2010
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed complaining willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the order dated 26.03.2007 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.7881 of 2007 in W.P.No.6161 of 2007, which reads as under:
“There shall be interim direction to the respondents to continue the petitioners in service if they are in service as on today on the same terms and conditions as of now.”
There is no necessity of going into all the details.
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation that in compliance of the aforesaid orders, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 18.11.2010, whereby the petitioner herein was directed to report to Deputy Executive Engineer to engage his services. The said proceedings have been placed on record for kind perusal of this Court.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner ought to have been engaged immediately after passing of the interim order dated 26.03.2007 in WPMP.No.7881 of 2007.
The contention of the petitioner cannot be gone into by this
Court in a contempt case like this. Since the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and passed a detailed order as stated supra, it cannot be said that the respondents have disobeyed the orders of this Court. Thus, the contempt case is liable to be closed.
Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from working out the remedies as available to him under law.
_____________ C.V.RAMULU,J
19.11.2009 v v
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the contempt case is liable to be closed since the respondents issued proceedings to engage the petitioner's services.
Whether the delay in engaging the petitioner can be said to be wilful disobedience of the impugned order.
Petitioner
Respondent Corporation
C.V. Ramulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
