In this contempt case, the petitioner challenged the respondents for retiring him after finding his age to be 60 years, contrary to a prior order pending age determination. The court held the retirement was in terms of the Age Determination Committee's report and dismissed the contempt petition as devoid of merits.
The contempt petition is dismissed.
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 Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Contempt Case No.1958 of 2013
Date: 26-12-2013
Between
Samanapalli Pochaiah
… Petitioner/ Petitioner
and
Sri Ram Mohan, Dy. General Manager (Oper.), OCP II, RG III Area, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Ramagundam, Karimnagar District; and another
… Respondents/ Respondents
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Contempt Case No.1958 of 2013
Judgment:
The petitioner seeks to punish the respondents for not implementing the orders in W.P.No.10396 of 2013, dated 30-8-2013. The operative portion of the order in the writ petition reads:
“4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till the determination of the correct age of the petitioner
according to the Rules and to take appropriate action for the retirement of the petitioner depending upon the age of the petitioner as determined in terms of the Rules. The respondents shall supply copies of the date of birth records of the petitioner to him. The respondents may take action to determine the correct date of birth of the petitioner within 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. No costs.”
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this order is violated and that the respondents have been treating as if the date of birth of the petitioner is 26-8-1953 whereas it ought to have been 25-10-1958.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as there were different entries in the Service Record of the petitioner, he was referred once again to the Age Determination Authority to decide the age and that the Age Determination Report dated
10-10-2013 shows that the petitioner completed 60 years of age by 10-10-2013.
4. The grouse of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the year of birth of the petitioner should have been treated as 1958. It is precisely the dispute. There are different entries in the Service Record, some showing the petitioner as born in 1953 and some other entries showing that he was born in 1958. There was no alternative for the respondents but to refer the petitioner to the Age
Determination Committee and act in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee.
5. There is no dispute that the petitioner was retired in terms of the recommendation of the Age Determination Committee. I therefore do not find any contempt on the part of the respondents. This contempt petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
26th December, 2013. Ak
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
Contempt Case No.1958 of 2013
th 26 December, 2013. (Ak)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the age of the petitioner was correctly determined by the Age Determination Committee thus making his retirement valid under the orderchallenged?
Whether the respondents' adherence to the Age Determination Committee's report constitutes contempt of the earlier writ order?
Whether the contempt petition should be dismissed for being devoid of merits?
Samanapalli Pochaiah
Sri Ram Mohan
K.G. Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
