B.K.Mohan, v. Sri.Y.Jagadeesh Prasad
Case brief
What is this about?
SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1095 of 2013…
SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1095 of 2013…
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CONTEMPT CASE No.1095 of 2013
Date: 03.09.2013
| Between: | ||
|---|---|---|
| B.K. Mohan |
… Petitioner | |
| And | ||
| Y. Jagadeesh Prasad | … Respondent | |
| *** * *** |
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CONTEMPT CASE No.1095 of 2013
ORDER:
This contempt case was instituted alleging disobedience to the final order dated 12.06.2012 passed by this Court in WP No.10969 of 2012. The said writ petition was allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 09.04.2012, whereby the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) had removed the petitioner from service. In consequence, the petitioner was deemed to have been continued in service.
2. Today, the Office Order dated 27.07.2012 passed by the Personnel Officer, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam, is produced indicating that, pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner was posted at the Paderu Depot of the APSRTC. The description of the petitioner in this Office Order indicates that it is not a fresh appointment as apprehended by the petitioner but a continuation of his earlier
appointment. The employment number continues to remain the same. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no disobedience to its order, much less wilful disobedience.
3. The contempt case is accordingly closed. No costs.
________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 03.09.2013 BSS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was in wilful disobedience of the Court's earlier order restoring him to service.
B.K. Mohan
Y. Jagadeesh Prasad
SANJAY KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court