In this contempt petition regarding alleged wilful disobedience of an order directing reengagement, the Court held the case closed after the respondent established compliance through a contract appointment.
Contempt case closed due to satisfaction of earlier order by contract reengagement.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
C.C.No.2120 OF 2012
ORDER
This contempt case is filed complaining wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders passed by this Court in WP No.2304 of 2007, dated 30.06.2007 whereunder the second respondent was directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law for reemployment to the post of Driver in the light of the Circular dated 11.8.2000 on production of renewed driving licence of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Learned counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents submits that the order passed by this Court has been complied with and the petitioner was re-engaged as Driver on contract basis and to that effect he has produced copy of the office order dated 6.3.2012 vide No.E3/255 (13)2011-GHZ issued by the Personnel Officer-II/GHZ. A perusal of the office order dated 6.3.2012 goes to show that the petitioner has been re-engaged as Driver on contract basis.
In that view of the matter, the contempt case is closed.
JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
Dt.22.1.2013 rkk
Petitioner
Applicant
Respondent
G.CHANDRAIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
