Disposed

Sri Erranna v. Mr. M.Laxman Rao

Telangana HC18 Dec 2013CC/547/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order concludes contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents for allegedly non-implementation of earlier pension benefit orders. The court held the case of the petitioner for SPP II post was not decided in the prior writ petition and left it open for future representation or writ.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings were closed; petitioner directed to file fresh representation or writ for SPP II entitlement.

Sri Erranna Vs Mr. M.Laxman Rao — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

C.C.No.547 of 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Court by order dated 24.04.2012 allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.18085 of 2005 directing the respondents to pay all the retirement benefits, service and pensionary benefits to the petitioner treating as if the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2004. It appears that the petitioner also filed writ appeal claiming higher interest and the same seems to have been allowed. Now, the main contention of Sri G.Mukunda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have committed contempt of Court by not implementing the orders of this Court.

¶5

The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that 20% of the vacancies are reserved for being filled in by unqualified employees in O&M Establishment and hence the petitioner is entitled to SPP-I and SPP II scales under automatic advancement scheme. It is also his submission that the request of the petitioner to provide a set of rules as applicable to O&M Establishment pay fixation statements, gross pay statements and extract of service book were not furnished to the petitioner and that the petitioner has been harassed by the respondents for the last 16 years and that in view of the specific directions of this Court to pay all the retiremental benefits, the respondents have committed breach of contempt.

¶6

Sri Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have implemented the orders of this Court and

¶7

sanctioned gratuity amount, commuted leave of pension, monthly pension etc., to the petitioner and that the case of the petitioner could not be considered for SPP II post, since he is not qualified. It is also argued that under B.P.Ms. No.972, twenty two years of service is necessary for considering his case for SPP II post.

¶8

Sri Mukund Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has specifically stated in the affidavit filed in W.P.No.18085 of 2005 that he is entitled to annual grade increments falling due on 10/97 to 10/2004 and fixation of pay in the revised pay scales 1998 and 2002 and also appointment to special Adhoc Permission Scale I and II on completion of 15 and 27 years of service and the same was not disputed by the respondents in their counter. The main contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled for appointment of SPP II under 20% of the vacancies reserved for unqualified employees in O&M Establishment. The main controversy in W.P.No.18085 of 2005 was whether the respondents were justified in insisting a fresh medical certificate to ascertain the date of birth of the petitioner. This Court considering the relevant regulations holding that the petitioner cannot be subjected to medical test and asking him to produce medical certificate after his retirement from service is unauthorized, allowed the writ petition while directing the respondents to pay all the retiremental benefits, service and pensionary benefits treating as if he retired from service on 31.10.2004.

¶9

The present controversy is whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment to SPP II post and it was not an issue in the writ petition.

¶10

In the above circumstances, it is left open to the petitioner to file a

¶11

fresh representation to the respondents to consider his case for SPP II post and for consequential benefits or to file a fresh writ petition if he is entitled for SPP II post.

¶12

Subject to the observations made supra, the contempt proceedings are closed.

¶13

____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J

¶14

Dt.18^th December, 2013 PNV

Sri Erranna v. Mr. M.Laxman Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Erranna v. Mr. M.Laxman Rao

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

V. Madhava Reddy, Vs Sri M.D.S.S.Khan

Syed Murtuza Quadri Vs Mrs. K. Sunitha, I.A.S.

Nimmagadda Baby Sarojini Vs Kothapalli Vishwakantha Rao

A.S. Hitavachani, Vs Prof. P. Vijaya Lakshmi

Penumalli Venkataramana Reddy Vs Gunupati Dayakar Reddy

G.Padmavathamma and Another Vs Dorasanipalle Mosa