Dismissed

T.Madhu v. M.Vijaya Raju, Secy,, Ap. Guntur

Telangana HC21 Dec 2018CC/119/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order in multiple contempt cases alleging disobedience of interim directions regarding salary payment. The court held the Secretary of the Legislature non-party to the original order directed at the State of Andhra Pradesh, closing these specific cases.

What did the court decide?

Contempt cases closed leaving petitioners to take steps against respondents 1 and 3 in writ petitions.

T.Madhu Vs M.Vijaya Raju, Secy,, Ap. Guntur — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE Nos.115, 116, 119 and 123 OF 2018

Date:21.12.2018

C.C.No.115 OF 2018

Between:

G. Rama Devi, D/o. G. Ramakrishna Raju, aged 45 years, R/o.LIG-623, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad and another

¶7

.. Petitioners

¶8

And

¶9

Sri M. Vijaya Raju, Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legislature, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District .. Respondent

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

¶12

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶13

CONTEMPT CASE Nos.115, 116, 119 and 123 OF 2018

¶14

COMMON ORDER:

¶15

Heard.

¶16

By way of interim order, interim direction as prayed for by the petitioners was granted. The prayer sought was to direct respondents 1 and 3 to pay the salaries and increments to the petitioners as per the Revised Pay Scales - 2015 as fixed by the 2^nd respondent without insisting for permanent I.D. numbers. These Contempt Cases are filed alleging disobedience of the said orders.

¶17

In these Contempt Cases, the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legislature, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, is the sole respondent. Pursuant to the notice in Form – I, the respondent is present.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent points out that there is no direction issued to the respondent; he is not able to pay the salaries and allowances, as the Secretary, Finance Department, is not accepting the proposal sent. From the reading of order of this Court against which these Contempt Cases are filed, it is seen that the direction issued was to the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary to Finance Department and the Pay and Accounts Office. There was no direction issued to the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legislature and therefore, the respondent herein cannot be held guilty of committing contempt.

¶19

¶20

Having regard to the same, the Contempt Cases are closed, leaving it open to the petitioners to take appropriate steps against respondents 1 and 3 in the Writ Petitions.

¶21

P. NAVEEN RAO, J

¶22

Date:21.12.2018 KH

T.Madhu v. M.Vijaya Raju, Secy,, Ap. Guntur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Madhu v. M.Vijaya Raju, Secy,, Ap. Guntur

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

A.Ratnamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Ch. Appalakonda Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Madunuri Sal Rama Krishna Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dappu Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana

K.Padma Sree Vs M.Vijaya Raju Spl.Secy Ap.State

B.Ramachander Vs M.Vijaya Raju ,Secy,Ap.Guntur