Disposed

Y. Yellaiah, v. Sri. A.K. Khan

Telangana HC5 Jun 2013CC/755/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt proceeding, a petitioner complained that his services were not regularised as ordered. The Standing counsel stated continuity of service was granted. The judge found no contempt as continuity was provided per the writ order, yet regularisation was a separate matter for the respondent to challenge.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

Y. Yellaiah, Vs Sri. A.K. Khan — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.755 of 2013

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This Court by order dated 23.01.2012 in Writ Petition No.4014 of 2011 directed the respondents to give the petitioner his continuity of service from the date of his removal till the date of reinstatement, for the purpose of regularisation without any monetary benefits.

¶4

The grievance of the petitioner is that his services have not been regularised in pursuance of the orders of this Court with effect from 01.01.2010 on par with his colleagues.

¶5

Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing counsel for APSRTC submits that as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner has been given continuity of service from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the continuity of service has been given for the purpose of regularisation and when the petitioner’s case is not considered for regularisation on par with his colleagues, then the action of respondents amounts to refusing to implement the orders of this Court. Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing counsel, submits that as far as regularisation is concerned, there may be several other factors for calculating the total period of service and that the said aspect cannot be decided in a contempt case. He asserted that as far as continuity of service is concerned, the petitioner has been given continuity of service from the date of termination till the date of regularisation.

¶6

In view of the above, it appears that the petitioner has to challenge the action of the respondents if his services are not regularised on par with his colleagues. Once it is said that the continuity of service has been given as per the orders in the writ petition, I am of the opinion that there is no contempt on the part of the respondents.

¶7

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶8

________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J

¶9

05^th June, 2013 gra

Y. Yellaiah, v. Sri. A.K. Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. Yellaiah, v. Sri. A.K. Khan

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

Penumancha Venkateswara Rao , Cabloe Babu, (A-23), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Gajula Nirmala Vs Akula Anjaiah

Namburi Yedukondalu , Dathudu Vs State of A.P.

Pyata Narayana, Vs Late Omar Ali Khan (died)

Sri Venkateswara Industrial Traning Centre, Vs The Director

Kalle Naga Raja Giri Prasad , Giri Prasad Sharma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh