Dismissed

M.Bala Krishna v. v Trinadha Rao , The Commissioner, of Endowments

Telangana HC19 Jul 2011CC/484/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a contempt petition filed by a suspended government servant. Although the petitioner alleged non-payment of salary arrears and false representations by respondents, the Court held that genuine disputes regarding eligibility and quantum of dues constitute a fresh cause of action for appropriate civil proceedings, not contempt. Since payments were made and

What did the court decide?

The first contempt case (C.C. No.466 of 2009) was closed previously; the instant contempt case (C.C. No.484 of 2010) is dismissed with no order as to costs.

M.Bala Krishna Vs v Trinadha Rao , The Commissioner, of… — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

C.C. No.484 of 2010

¶6

Between:

¶7

M.Bala Krishna … Petitioner and V.Trinadha Rao and another

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶10

C.C. No.484 of 2010

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This contempt case is filed seeking to punish the respondents in accordance with law for not implementing the directions given by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.11679 of 2008 in W.P. No.25339 of 2006 dated 25.09.2008.

¶13

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he filed

¶14

W.P. No.25339 of 2006 seeking to declare the proceedings dated 19.10.2006 of the 1^st respondent, suspending the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. Along with the said writ petition, he filed W.P.M.P. No.32465 of 2006 seeking to suspend the impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2006. This Court on 16.02.2007, granted interim suspension of the impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2006 and consequent upon the interim suspension of the impugned proceedings, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 19.05.2007.

¶15

Further, the petitioner also filed W.P.M.P. No.11679 of 2008 seeking direction to the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.1,36,830/- towards arrears of salary due and payable up to the March, 2008. This Court on 25.09.2008 passed interim direction to the respondents to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period under which, he was under suspension, if the same was not paid and shall also be paid salary regularly, if he is working. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 30.12.2008 to the respondents with a request to implement the directions given by this Court. At that stage, the claim of

¶16

the petitioner was that he is entitled to arrears of salary due and payable up to 29.02.2009 is a sum of Rs.1,99,360/- calculating the salary at the rate of Rs.6,230/- per month, whereas, the respondents have paid only a sum of Rs.1,27,286/- and therefore, requested to pay balance of Rs.72,074/- for which, his efforts have gone futile. Therefore, earlier he filed

¶17

C.C. No.466 of 2009 complaining that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with wherein, this Court on 20.04.2009 issued notice before admission and on receipt of the notices in the said contempt case, the respondents have paid a sum of Rs.44,354/- instead of arrears of salary to a tune of Rs.72,074/- as on the date of filing of the contempt case. On the submission made on behalf of the respondents that they have complied with the directions given by this Court, the said contempt case was closed on 16.02.2010.

¶18

It is his further case that as on the date of filing of the said contempt case, the respondents shall have to pay an amount of Rs.72,074/- towards arrears of salary and after filing the said contempt case, the respondents have paid only an amount of Rs.43,754/- leaving balance of Rs.28,320/-. Even subsequent to the date of contempt, the respondents are not paying the amount/salaries due and payable to him and they shall have to pay an amount of Rs.1,01,080/- towards arrears of salary due and payable up to the end of February, 2010. After filing the said contempt case, as the respondents having made a false representation that they have complied with the order passed by this Court, this Court closed the said contempt case. Therefore, having no other alternative, the petitioner filed the present contempt case on the ground that in view of the closure of the said contempt case, the respondents are contending that no amount is due to him. Therefore, the action of the respondents is willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court.

¶19

On behalf of the 1^st respondent, detailed counter affidavit has been filed, which reads at para 4 of the same as follows:

¶20

1	July, 2006 to October, 2006 (4 months) @ Rs.6230/- per month = Rs.24,920/-.	This amount could not be paid as the petitioner failed to handover the charges of records, accounts and jewellery of the respective institutions.
2	Nov, 2006 to May 2007 (7 months) 2 Rs.2684/- per month as an amount of Rs.3546/- per month was paid for these seven months = Rs.18,788/-	He was paid subsistence allowance only. His claim for full salary is not correct and untenable as per law.
3	March, 2009 to February, 2010 salary payable per one institution	The claim is that the salary from 3/2009 to 2/2010 was not paid
	for this period was not paid Rs.434/- x 12 = Rs.5208/-.	which is due from Sri Markandeya Swamy temple, Markondepadu. The salary for the period from 3/2009 to 6/2009 was paid to the petitioner through pay order No.619547, Dt.19.04.2010 of Andhra Bank, Kovvuru. But according to the orders of the Hon’ble Lokayuktha vide Complaint No.1298/2004/B1 Dt.27.4.2009, the salary was stopped from 7/2009 onwards.
4	June, 2009 to February, 2010 @ Rs.5796/- in respect of three institutes for a period of nine months = Rs.52164/-	The salary of 6/2009 has been paid to an amount of Rs.4784/- on 07.07.2009 and Rs.1012/- through D.D. No.619545, Dt.19.04.2010, Andhra Bank, Kovvuru. Subsequently as per
		the orders of the Hon’ble
		Lokyuktha in Complaint No.1298/2004/B1 Dt.27.4.2009
		the salary of the petitioner was stopped from 7/2009 onwards.

¶21

In view of the above, it is submitted that the orders passed by this Court have already been complied with. Therefore, the present contempt case is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the respondents have paid some amounts pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, total amounts, as per his claim, have not been paid. Therefore, the order

¶23

passed by this Court has not been complied with. Hence, he filed the present contempt case.

¶24

On the other hand, the respondents have filed detailed counter stating that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner was paid amounts, due to him, as per his eligibility. Therefore, no contempt survives and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

From a perusal of the record, C.C. No.466 of 2009 arose out of the order dated 25.09.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.11679 of 2008 in W.P. No.25339 of 2008, whereunder,

¶26

the respondents were directed to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period under which, he was under suspension, if the same was not paid. Further, petitioner was also directed to be paid salary regularly, if he is working as on the date of passing of the order. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance for the period, for which he was kept under suspension, as per his eligibility, as that the salary for the period of three months was withheld as per the direction of the Lokayukta, C.C. No.466 of 2009 was closed on 16.02.2010.

¶27

The present contempt case i.e. C.C. No.484 of 2010 is filed on the ground that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the respondents have paid certain amounts, but still they have to pay a sum of Rs.1,01,080/- towards arrears of salary. Further, it is also contended that the respondents have made false representation before this Court that the order passed by this Court has been complied with and got closed the earlier contempt case filed by him. Therefore, having no alternative, he filed the present contempt case.

¶28

From the above all, it is clear that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.11679 of 2008, the respondents have paid

¶29

certain amounts to the petitioner and the said amount is disputed by the petitioner saying that he is entitled to more amounts. This constitutes fresh cause of action for which he has to seek redressal in appropriate proceedings and the said dispute cannot be decided in the contempt case.

¶30

Admittedly, the petitioner was paid certain amounts pursuant to the order passed by this Court. Therefore, it cannot be held that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order 25.09.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.11679 of 2008 in W.P. No.25339 of 2006.

¶31

For the foregoing reasons, this contempt case is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶33

Date: 19.07.2011 LSK

M.Bala Krishna v. v Trinadha Rao , The Commissioner, of Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Bala Krishna v. v Trinadha Rao , The Commissioner, of Endowments

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

The General Manager Vs Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972-cum

The General Manager Vs Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972-

The General Manager Vs Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972

K.M.R. Kumar Vs Murali Goud

B.Daniel Vs Sri Kruopanandam

Goli Madhavai, Vs Goli Meeraiah