Dismissed

S.Yadaiah v. Sri Sk. Noor Ahmed, Depot Manager

Telangana HC8 Feb 2012CC/1606/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a prior order regarding the petitioner's reinstatement. The court held that reinstatement was effected, dismissing the contempt case but granting liberty to claim back salary for the delay period via a separate representation.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case dismissed; petitioner granted liberty to make a representation regarding claim for salary for one year delay.

S.Yadaiah Vs Sri Sk. Noor Ahmed, Depot Manager — Election Law | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE NO.1606 OF 2010

¶3

Dt:- 08.02.2012

¶4

Between:-

¶5

S.Yadaiah Sk.Noor Ahmed

¶6

… Petitioner and

¶7

… Respondent

¶8

This Court made the following:-

¶9

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶10

CONTEMPT CASE NO.1606 OF 2010

¶11

ORDER: -

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

This contempt case is filed alleging disobedience and noncompliance with the order of this Court in W.P.No.21508 of 2010, dated 09.08.2010. While notice on admission was issued, it now transpires that the respondents in the writ petition have filed Writ Appeal No.478 of 2011 against the said order of learned Single Judge, but the appeal also has been dismissed on 29.06.2011, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. However, petitioner was not granted benefit of continuity of service and other benefits were also denied to him by the learned Single Judge earlier.

¶14

It is now accepted by both the learned counsel that after the decision in the Writ Appeal referred to above, petitioner has been reinstated under proceedings of the Executive Director of the respondents, dated 30.07.2011. In view of that, therefore, the order stands complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that in spite of succeeding before the learned Single Judge as

¶15

well as in the Division Bench, the order of reinstatement is delayed by more than a year and as such, petitioner is entitled to salary for the aforesaid period. However, the said claim is relatable to the period subsequent to the order of learned Single Judge and cannot be a subject matter of this contempt case.

¶16

While dismissing the Contempt Case in the circumstances as above, petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation to the respondent and if the respondent considers entitlement for the salary for one year period and if such representation is made, he shall consider and pass appropriate orders as per law.

¶17

The Contempt Case is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

_____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶19

08.02-2012 lmv

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶21

CONTEMPT CASE No.1606 OF 2010

¶22

08.02.2012

¶23

lmv

S.Yadaiah v. Sri Sk. Noor Ahmed, Depot Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Yadaiah v. Sri Sk. Noor Ahmed, Depot Manager

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

D.Nandya, Vs a.P.Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd.

Prof. Velamala Simmanna, Vs The Honble Chancellor of Government of

M.Sudhakar Goud Vs Ap Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., rep.by

Sri Venkateswara Bhaktha Sangham, Vs The Project Director

B.Obul Reddy Vs The Project Offier and Ex.officio Joint Secretary

Smt. T. Bhadramma, Vs The Managing Director, Mother Diary