Dismissed

Sri v.Vinay Vidyadhar, v. Sri Alok Rawat

Telangana HC18 Feb 2014CC/1950/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case regarding compliance with prior High Court directions on implementing Family Category System (FCS) benefits for Group-B posts, the court found that the Respondent complied by placing the second petitioner in the promotion list. The court directed the Respondent to provide consequential monetary benefits within three months and disposed of the contempt case.

What did the court decide?

Direction to give consequential monetary benefits to the second petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Sri v.Vinay Vidyadhar, Vs Sri Alok Rawat — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No.1950 OF 2013

¶3

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta)

¶4

The petitioners have filed this contempt case against the orders passed by this Court in WP No.24452 of 2010, dated 30.11.2010, vide which, the following directions were issued:

¶5

“In the circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have directed the petitioners to revise 1995 Rules so as to include the benefit of FCS for the Group-B posts. However, having regard to the Presidential Order, which has statutory force, pursuant to which the Department of Science and Technology issued O.M. dated 02.05.1986 and the consequent O.M. dated 09.11.1998, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is under obligation to implement O.M. dated 02.05.1986, as modified by OM 09.11.1998 and take further action to implement the FCS in respect of respondents-applicants.”

¶6

Sri Ponnam Ashok Gound, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 states that the aforementioned directions issued by this Court have been duly complied with. He also placed on record a copy of the order issued by the Ministry of Water Resources, dated 31.01.2014, as per which, the second petitioner has been placed in C-2, promotion list since 2004.

¶7

Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that monetary benefits have not been released to the second petitioner.

¶8

Learned Assistant Solicitor General states that all the necessary

¶9

implications of the order dated 31.01.2014 would follow in due course.

¶10

In view of the orders, dated 31.01.2014, we are satisfied that the orders passed by this Court, have been duly complied with. The respondent shall take steps to give consequential benefits of the aforesaid orders to the second petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

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

¶12

__________________________________ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.

¶13

_______________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY.

¶14

Date : 04.02.2014 Gvl

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶16

CONTEMPT CASE No.1950 OF 2013

¶17

Date : 04.02.2014

¶18

Gvl

Sri v.Vinay Vidyadhar, v. Sri Alok Rawat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v.Vinay Vidyadhar, v. Sri Alok Rawat

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

M/s. Sree Rama Educational Society, Vs Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Seshapeeran Street, Chittor

M/s. Sree Rama Educational Society, Vs Indian Bank

M/s. Janata Seva and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Vs State Bank of India

Salveru padmarao Vs Salveru Anjaneyulu

M/s. Aishwarya Civiltech Pvt.Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

State of Ap Before Stat Ap Hyd Vs M/S Devan Rubber Industries Ltd. v.Wada