Disposed

SRi.P.Parameswara Rao, v. Sri Adhar Sinha IAS , The Managing Director

Telangana HC26 Jul 2011CC/1713/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order closing multiple contempt cases filed against respondents for allegedly disobeying an order to release pension and terminal benefits. Court finds substantial compliance and closes cases, but grants petitioners liberty to seek differential amounts via representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Closed all contempt cases; granted liberty to petitioners to make representation within four weeks for differential amounts.

SRi.P.Parameswara Rao, Vs Sri Adhar Sinha IAS , The… — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

CONTEMPAT CASE NO:1709. 1710, 1712, 1713, 1715 of 2009, 43 of 2010 and 1000 of 2010

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

The present contempt cases are filed by the petitioners seeking to punish the respondents under sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act complaining that they have disobeyed the order dated 26.9.2008 in W.P.NO:12528 of 2005 and batch.

¶5

Since all these contempt cases arose out of one and the same common order, all the contempt cases are disposed of by this common order.

¶6

The writ petition in W.P.No:12528 of 2005 and batch was filed by the petitioners seeking for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not sanctioning and releasing all the terminal benefits including family pension, pension arrears and gratuity to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being voilative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the respondents to sanction and release all the terminal benefits including the family pension, pension arrears and gratuity forthwith with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the demise of the petitioner’s husband.

¶7

By an order dated 26.9.2008, this Court disposed of the writ petition No:12528 of 2005 and batch in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No:10970 of 2003 and batch, dated 31.7.2008, which was disposed of as

¶8

under:

¶9

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel that pursuant to the interim order that the petitioners/s pensionary benefits have been settled, the respondents are directed to finalize the payments of terminal benefits to the petitioners, in the same process in which their pensionary benefits have been settled, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶10

Complaining that the said order has not been complied with, the present contempt cases have been filed.

¶11

At this stage, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents while placing a copy of the letter Roc.No:Spl/E2/2010-2011, dated 27.4.2011 addressed by the Director, State Audit, A.P. Hyderabad to the Managing Director, A.P. D.D.C.F. Ltd., Lalpet, Hyderabad submits that the petitioners in the batch of contempt cases have been paid the necessary dues as entitled by them and thereby, they have complied with the order passed by this Court.

¶12

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is substantial compliance of the order passed by this Court. But, the amounts so far received by the petitioners are not in complete satisfaction and therefore, the petitioners may be given liberty to make appropriate representation in that regard.

¶13

Recording the submissions made by the counsel on either side coupled with the fact that there is substantial compliance of the order passed by this Court, all the contempt cases are closed.

¶14

However, the petitioners are at liberty to make a

¶15

representation with regard to the differential amount, if any within a period of four (4) Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in that event, it is for the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) Weeks thereafter.

¶16

_________________ Justice G.Chandraiah.

¶17

Gurc. Date:26.7.2011

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶19

CONTEMPAT CASE NO:1709. 1710, 1712, 1713, 1715 of 2009, 43 of 2010 and 1000 of 2010

¶20

DATE:26.07.2011

SRi.P.Parameswara Rao, v. Sri Adhar Sinha IAS , The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

SRi.P.Parameswara Rao, v. Sri Adhar Sinha IAS , The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Amarendra Reddy Vs Sri v.Venkatramaiah, IFS

M.Chandraiah Vs Ap State Housing Corporation Ltd., rep.by its

S.R.K.Nagaraju, Vs The Depot Manager,Apsrtc

G.G.Reddy Vs Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

D. Suryanarayana Raju S/o Late Sri Rama Raghava Raju Vs Sri Adhar Sinha I a S

Sri I.Satyanandam, Vs Sri Adhar Sinha I a S, The Managing Director