Allowed

Banothu Ramkumar v. Mr. N. Chakradhar Rao

Telangana HC1 Oct 2019CC/520/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court concluded that the 1st respondent committed willful disobedience by failing to comply with the order dated 07.02.2018 in two writ petitions concerning reinstatement as Secondary Grade Teachers. The contempt cases were allowed, granted six weeks for compliance, with a two-month imprisonment threat in default.

What did the court decide?

Contempt cases allowed; respondent granted six weeks to comply with orders to reinstate petitioners as Secondary Grade Teachers and pay wages; threat of two months imprisonment in default.

Banothu Ramkumar Vs Mr. N. Chakradhar Rao — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

CC.No.520 of 2019

¶3

¶4

WP.No.34920 of 2016

¶5

and

¶6

CC.No.524 of 2019 in

¶7

WP.No.34724 OF 2016

¶8

COMMON ORDER:

¶9

CC.No.520 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner therein alleging willful non-compliance with the order dt.07.02.2018 in WP.No.34920 of 2016 and CC.No.524 of 2019 is also filed by the petitioner therein alleging willful non-compliance with the order dt.07.02.2018 in WP.No.34724 of 2016.

¶10

In both these writ petitions, direction has been given to the 1^st respondent in the Contempt Cases to forthwith reinstate the petitioners into service as Secondary Grade Teachers and also pay wages to them from 25.09.2016 till such reinstatement into service.

¶11

After filing of these contempt cases, the Government Pleader for Services-II took notice for respondents on 25.04.2019. Thereafter the matter underwent 10 adjournments ie., 26.06.2019, 12.07.2019, 16.07.2019,17.07.2019, 25.07.2019, 05.08.2019, 09.08.2019, 27.08.2019, 06.09.2019 and on 13.09.2019.

¶12

No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents explaining the reasons for their inaction in implementing the said order. It is also not the case of the respondents that any appeal was preferred against these orders and there was a stay granted by the Division Bench of implementing the orders dt.07.02.2018 in both the Writ Petitions.

¶13

¶14

In this view of the matter, it has to be concluded that the 1^st respondent in both the Contempt Cases has committed willful disobedience of the order dt.07.02.2018 in both the Writ Petitions.

¶15

Accordingly, both these Contempt Cases are allowed; and the 1^st respondent is granted six (06) weeks time from today to comply with the orders dt.07.02.2018 in both the Writ Petitions. In default of compliance with this order, he shall suffer imprisonment for a period of two (02) months. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand dismissed.

¶16

____________________________
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
01 st October, 2019.
gra

Banothu Ramkumar v. Mr. N. Chakradhar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banothu Ramkumar v. Mr. N. Chakradhar 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

Smt. Earan Salamma Vs The State of Telangana, and 5 Others

Karampudi Gopala Chary Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Venkatya, And 12 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

Lakavath Sanklal Vs Mr. N.Chakradhar Rao

Smt. J. Shardha Vs the State of Telangana

Keesari Nagendar Babu Vs The State of Telangana