Dismissed

G.Jayapal Reddy v. a.Subba Rami Reddy, S/o. a.Adi Reddy

Telangana HC4 Jul 2011CC/36/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case regarding non-compliance of an order directing reinstatement and benefits, the Court dismissed the petition. It held that since the petitioner was appointed on a consolidated pay basis as a contract employee and an appeal against the original order was pending, there was no ground to entertain the contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case is dismissed. No order as to costs.

G.Jayapal Reddy Vs a.Subba Rami Reddy, S/o. a.Adi Reddy — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE NO.36 of 2011

DATE:04.07.2011

BETWEEN

G.JAYAPAL REDDY

…PETITIONER

AND

A.SUBBA RAMI REDDY & ANOTHER

¶9

…RESPONDENTS.

¶10

THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶12

CONTEMPT CASE NO.36 of 2011

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This contempt case is filed by the petitioner seeking to summon the respondents personally and punish them under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt Act for their willful, deliberate and wanton disobedience of the orders passed in W.P.No.20987 of 207, dated 2.9.2007.

¶15

The petitioner filed W.P.No:20987 of 2007 seeking for a writ certiorari seeking to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in Rc.No:E1/3/2004, dated 9.9.2007 passed by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and

¶16

consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate him in service will all consequential benefits including back wages.

¶17

This Court by order dated 4.10.2007 passed the following order

¶18

in W.P.M.P.No:27211 of 2007:

¶19

“It appears, petitioner was proceeded with departmentally and an enquiry officer was appointed and he submitted a report without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner filed W.P.No:24600 of 2003 which was disposed of. In the meanwhile, it appears that a second enquiry officer was appointed on 14.11.2006. Therefore, petitioner filed Review W.P.M.P.No:6764 of 2007, which was disposed of on 23.3.2007 directing the respondents to proceed with the second enquiry pursuant to the proceedings dated 14.11.2006 and pass appropriate orders. According to the petitioner, the second enquiry officer gave a report but without considering the same, the impugned order was passed.” Ultimately, by an order dated 2.9.2010 this Court disposed of the writ petition 20987 of 2007 with the following order:

¶20

“Looking from any angle, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside and instead of remanding the matter, I deem it appropriate to give quietus to the litigation here itself. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot escape from the misconduct committed by him and he has to suffer from punishment or the other. The punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶21

In the result, respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits including increments, arrears of salary etc. However, respondents shall imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect against the petitioner.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.” Complaining that the order of this Court passed in the writ petition has not been complied with, the present contempt case is filed.

¶23

In this regard, the respondents have filed a detailed counter contending that the petitioner was initially engaged on contract basis as welder in the institution on 1.12.1998 on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.1,500/- and the same was increased from time to time to Rs.3,800/- from 2.2.2002. He was found guilty of misconduct in tampering the attendance register and he was suspended by the 1^st respondent on 10.10.2003 and the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No:24600 of 2003 and it was closed on the ground that the enquiry was conducted and final order of discharge was passed. On that, the petitioner filed W.P.No:20987 of 2007 which was disposed of by this Court on 2.9.2010. It is further contended that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on consolidated salary for which there will be no benefits of annual increments except increase of remuneration from time to time and therefore, there is no possibility to extend the benefits including increments to a person working a consolidated remuneration. It is further contended that there is a ban on regular appointments and regularization of services of contract workers as per G.O.Ms.No:1997 and hence his services cannot be regularized in a time scale post and in view of the orders of this Court, he is being continued without adopting the outsourcing agency.

¶24

On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Welder on 1.12.1998 on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,500/- p.m. through a due process of selection by the governing body of Srikalahasteeswra Institute of Technology which is under the management of Srikalahasteeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Srikalahasti and the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam is the Secretary and Correspondent to the Srikalahasteeswara Institute of Technology-2^nd respondent herein. He was absorbed as Contract Labour vide office note dated 9.1.1999 by fixing the monthly salary of Rs.1,500/- with effect from 1.12.1998 and his salary was raised from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/- on 1.12.1999 and further enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,400/- from 1.12.2000 and again his pay was

¶25

enhanced to Rs.3,800/- with effect from 2.2.2002. According to his performance of work and seniority, he was redesignated as Senior Mechanic along with two other welders on 30.8.2002 with effect from 2.9.2002 vide proceedings Rc.No:SKIT/ME/2002 issued by the 1^st respondent. His further case is that though his appointment order was given as if on contract labour basis, he has been discharging the duties similar to that of a permanent employee.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel.

¶27

On the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether there is any contempt of court on the part of the respondents.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service with effect from 18.4.2008 and he is continuing in service. But he has not been provided with any continuity of service and other attendant benefits and arrears of salary etc., and therefore, the respondents have not complied with the order of this Court and hence they are liable for punishment under sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶29

On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has already been reinstated into service with effect from 18.4.2008 and arrears of salary has been paid to him and he is being paid the salary every month. It is further submitted that the petitioner was only a contract employee and the punishment of stoppage of one increment, cannot be implemented and he is not entitled to the benefits as that of a regular employee. It is further submitted that on the presumption that the petitioner is a regular employee, W.P.20987 of 2007 was disposed of with a direction to consider his case for the arrears of salary and other attendant benefits by imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment. It is further submitted that against the order in W.P.No:20987 of 2007, an appeal in W.A (SR) No:52727 of 2011 has

¶30

been preferred and the same is pending with the delay petition.

¶31

In the facts and circumstances, the fact that remains undisputed is that the petitioner was appointed as a Welder on 1.12.1998 on a consolidated pay and the same has been increased from time to time. In this regard, it is the case of the petitioner that though his appointment order was given as if on contract labour basis, he has been discharging the duties similar to that of a permanent employee and therefore, he is entitled to the benefits as that of a regular employee.

¶32

A perusal of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No:20987 of 2007 makes it clear that to give a quietus to the litigation here itself, the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect is just and proper in view of the fact that the petitioner cannot escape from the misconduct committed by him and he has to suffer some punishment or the other.

¶33

It is nowhere found that the petitioner is a regular employee. Apart from that, the version of the petitioner in the affidavit itself makes it clear that he was appointed as a welder on a consolidated pay. In view of the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is a contract employee and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefits as that of a regular employee and in view of the fact that against the order passed by this Court in W.P.No:20987 of 2007, writ appeal is pending along with the delay petition coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any ground to entertain the contempt case and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶35

___________________ Justice G.Chandraiah

¶36

Date:04.07.2011 gurc.

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶38

CONTEMPT CASE NO.36 of 2011

¶39

DATE:04.07.2011

G.Jayapal Reddy v. a.Subba Rami Reddy, S/o. a.Adi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Jayapal Reddy v. a.Subba Rami Reddy, S/o. a.Adi Reddy

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

Sri Ganithi Narayana Rao S/o. Koteswara Rao Vs The Regional Joint Commissioner

V.Suryachandra Prakasa Rao Vs The District Collector

E.B.Ramalinga Reddy Vs The Andhra Pragati Grameena Bank, rep.by its

J.Lalitha Kameswari Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, rep. by its

P. Krishna Murhty Vs The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Scheduled

Sri K. Chandrasekhar Reddy Vs Smt. Duvvuri Pratheesha , Komireddy Pratheesha