Disposed

Sangam Anjaiah v. Sri G.v.Ramana Rao

Telangana HC30 Jun 2017CC/2397/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition was closed. The petitioner failed to appeal against the Single Judge's order depriving him of benefits. The fact that another employee got benefits in a different appeal does not make the petitioner's conduct contemptuous. The lower court order remains complied with.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case is closed with no findings of contempt against the petitioner.

Sangam Anjaiah Vs Sri G.v.Ramana Rao — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶3

Contempt Case No.2397 of 2016

¶4

ORDER: (per V. Ramasubramanian, J.)

¶5

This contempt case arises out of an order passed by the Bench dismissing a writ appeal filed by the management of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.

¶6

Heard Mr. G. Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Corporation.

¶7

The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20777 of 2009 challenging an order retiring the petitioner from service dated 12-082009. The writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge by an order dated 30-03-2012 directing reinstatement with continuity of service, but without any attendant benefits or back wages.

¶8

The petitioner never filed any writ appeal against the said order seeking the benefits, which were deprived to him. On the contrary, the Corporation filed a writ appeal, which was dismissed by this Bench. While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench also took note of a writ appeal in respect of another employee’s case. In that writ appeal in W.A.No.1082 of 2012 another employee seems to have been granted other benefits. Therefore, contending that his claim for attendant benefits stood allowed by the Division Bench, the petitioner has come up with this contempt petition.

VRS, J & ARR, J

C.C. No.2397 of 2016

What happened in the case of the employee covered by W.A.No.1082 of 2012 cannot be a matter of concern in this contempt petition. The petitioner never challenged the order of single Judge depriving him of the advantage of attendant benefits. Therefore, no contempt arises so long as the order of single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench has been complied with.

¶13

Hence, this Contempt Case is closed.

¶14

________________________
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J

¶15

________________________
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
Date: 30-06-2017
Ksn

Sangam Anjaiah v. Sri G.v.Ramana Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangam Anjaiah v. Sri G.v.Ramana 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

D. Lakshminarayana Vs Dr.J.Purnachandra Rao, Ips.

Bandi Krishna Reddy , V.K. Reddy and Anr. Vs Spl.Dy.Collector,L.a.,T.G.P., Cuddapah

Palempalli Sunil Manohar Reddy, Vs The Special Deputy Collector (La), Telugu Ganag Project

G. Darshan, Vs Smt. S. Madhavi

K.B. Jagan Mohan, Vs Sri V.N. Vishnu, Ias.

The a.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation Vs K.B.Jagan Mohan