Four contempt cases regarding non-transfer of state educational employees were disposed of. The court examined the initial writ order and found compliance for the relevant period, noting further salary claims require new litigation.
Contempt cases disposed of with liberty to petitioners to file a writ petition for remaining salary dues.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
I,IONDAY, THE SEVENTHDAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
CONTEMPT CASE Nos: 298 299 302 & 303of 2021
Co ntemp t Case Nos: 298of 2021
Betwee n:
G. Hari Babu, Sio. Late G.Satyanaraya na, Aged about 59years,working as Junior College Librarian, O/o. TelanganaState Residential Junior College, Sarvail,Yadadri Bhuvanagir District. TelanganaState. ...Petitioner
AND
..Respondents
Petition under sections10 to12 of Contemptof courts Act 197'1 praylng that in the circumstancesstatedin the affidavitfiled herein the High courtmay be pleased to punish the respondents underSections10 to 12 of contempt of courts Act, 1971 for willfully disobeyingthe orders passed by Justicel,4. s. Ramachandra Rao and The Sri JusticeT. Amarnath Goud of this courtin w.P No. 8487 0f 2020, dated 7-B-2020.
2
Contempt Case NO: 299 OF 2021
Between:
B. Sambasiva Rao, S/o. B. Goppaiah (Late), Aged about 59years, workingas Physical Director, O/o. Telangana State Residential Junior College,Sarvail, Yadadri Bhuvanagir District. Telangana State. Rio. Flat No.4, C-Block, SwagruhaApartment, Bhagyanagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State- 500072
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Sections'10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act'197"1praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file hereinthe HighCourt maybe pleased to punish the respondents under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willfully disobeying the orderspassed by the JusticeSri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao and The Sri Justice T. AmarnathGoud of this Courtin W.P No. 7225 of 2020 dated 71812020.
Contempt Case Noo: 302 OF 2021
Betwee n:
Smt. Sh. Nazeera Begum, W/o. B.Gudu Saheb, Aged about 59years, workingas PGT Telugu, 0/o. Telangana State Residential School(Boys), Toopran,l/ledak District Telangana State.
...Petitioner
AND
3
Telangana State Residential, Educational lnstitutions Society, Rep., by its Secretary, Gagan Vihar Nampatly, Hyderabad.
... Respon dents
Petition under sections 10 to 12 of contempt of courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High court may be pleased to to punish the respondents under Sections 10 to 12 of contempt of courts Act, 1971 f or willfully disobeying the orders passed by the Justice sri IVl.s.Ramachandra Rao and rhe Justice T. Amarnath Goud of this court in w.p No. 8BB0 ot 2020 dated 7t812020.
Contempt Case No: 303 0F 2021
Between:
N Kureshi Banu, w/o. Sharfuddin, Aged about 59 years, working as staff Nurse, o/o.. Telangana State Residentiar sch6or (Boys), Borabanta, Hyoeiroaolietaniana State.
AND
...petitioner
... Respondents
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts AcI lgT j praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fire herein the High court may be pleased to punish the respondents under sections 10 to 12 0f contempt of courts Act, 1971 for willfully disobeying the orders passed by the Justice sri Jus,ce M S Ramachandra Rao and rhe sri Justice T. Amarnath Goud of this court in W.P No. 8866 of ZO2O dated ZtBl2O2O.
For the Petitioners : Sri R. Satyanarayana Murthy, Advocate For the Respondents: Gp for School Education (TG) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
THE HON' BLE THE CH IEF CE SATISH CHANDRASHARMA AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHI NAND XUMAR SHAVILI
CONTEMPT CASE Nos .298, 299. 302 and 3O3 of 2021,
COMMON ORDER : (Per the lTon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chq.n.lra Sharmrl)
Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order.
The facts of C.C.No.299 of 2021 are reproduced as u n der:
The present contempt case is arising out of an order dated 07.08.2020 passed in W.p.No.7225 of 2020.
The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner before this Court was an emplo-yee serving the Telangana State Residential Junior College and a r.r,rit petition was preferred before this Court being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for relieving him from the State of Telangaaa pursuant to his allocation to the State of Andhra pradesh.
1
The operativeportion of the order passed b1' the 1S Division Bench of thisCourt ir-i the u'ritpetition reproducedas under:-
"1OO. Accordingly, theWrit Petitionsare allowed withoutcostsas under:
a) the proceedings RC.No.2436lC1-1/A1ll2olg dt. 15.11.2019of the Secretary of TREIS relieving thepetitionersfrom service of TREISand directing them toreport to AFREISare declared as violative of Article14 ofthe Constitution and Section 82 of theAct and are accordinglyset aside;
b) consequently theploceedings inletter No.17O2 1/17ITRG/A1 l2)ltidt.O7.O52020 of the Prl. Secretary tothe Govertlnlent,SchoolEducation Department, AP Secretariat,Velagapudi, Amaravathi, addressedto the Secretary,APREIS and the consequentialproceedings Rc.No.1 142923IESES3ACADOCOPISCH)i1'2O2o- ACCD dt.9.5.2O2Oof the Secretary, APREISasking the petitioners toreport back to the TREISare held to be valid;
c) the TREIS shallpay the salary to ali the petitioners from 15.11.2019till date(except for the petitioner in WP.No.7225of 2020, who shal1be paid such sa1ary from15.11.2019till 30.05.2020only) and continue topay the sameby providing them
1
posting orders till there is an agreement with the APREIS on the modalities/guidelines for allocation of employees of erstwhile APREIS and ttll they are allotted to the APREIS in such allocation; and such payment shall be made within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for the dues till 31.07.2020;
the APRDIS and the TREIS shall discuss rvith d) each other and agree on the modalities/ guidelines for allocation of employees of erstwhile APREI S within two months liom the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and then allocate the employees as per the said norms within one month of finalization of modalities/ guidelines;
e) on the modalities/guidelines being agreed upon by the APREIS and TREIS, the case of the petitioner in WP.No.7225 of 2O2O has to be considered as per the said modalities/ guidelines and in the event, he is allocated to the APREIS, he rvould be entitled to be reinducted in the APREIS till he attains the age of 60 years, subject to the said petitioner refunding to tl-re TREIS, any zrmounts receivcrd towards retirement benefits from the TREIS u,ithout interest within four weeks of such allocation to the APREIS.
A counter affidavit l-r as been fiied by the Telangana St erte Resrdential Educational instrtutions Society and it
has been categorica-lly stated that the salary from 15.11.2019 tiil the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e., 37.05.2O2O has been paid by the Telangana State. Meaning thereby, the salary up to the retirement age in the Telangana State i.e., 58 years has already been paid b1'rl.re State of Telangana.
At this juncture, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the age of retirement in the State of Anclhr:r Pradesh is 60 years and the petitioner has joined the Statc: ol Andhra Pradesh pursuant to his relieving order as per the modalities/guidelines framed b_r, the employer.
ln the considered opinion of this Colrrt, so far as thc order passed in the writ petition is concerned, the same has already been complied with. However, in respect of tire remajning salary i.e., continuation beyond 58 years of age, the petitioner shall certainly be free to file an appropriate writ petition.
C.C.No.299 of 2O2l sha1l stand disposect ol accordingly.
I
In the light of the order passed in C.C.No.299 of 2021, the other contempt cases i.e, C.C.Nos.29B, 302 and,
303 of 2O2l are also disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file a writ petition in respect of the remaining salary.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shal1 stand closed.
To,
SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT RFE]STRAR ,TRUE COPY' srcrr/#Krrrcen
KNK
HIGH COURT
DATED:0710312022
COMMON ORDER
CONTEMPT CASE Nos: 298,299,302 & 303 of 2021
i, IAl'E
c ?1:n
1"r '
o i.
(l
i tit.-1r
DISPOSED OF.
8v'\ "s
1x "
@
2 issues framed by the court
Whether respondents willfully disobeyed orders of Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice T. Amarnath Goud by not securing transfer of petitioners.
What relief is admissible for non-compliance with transfer orders under the Contempt of Courts Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G. Hari Babu
B. Sambasiva Rao
Smt. Sh. Nazeera Begum
N Kureshi Banu
Smt Chitra Ramachandran
Sri Ch.Ramana Kumar
Satish Chandra Sharma
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
