Disposed

P. Dhanalakshmi v. Smt. Ranjeev R.Acharya, IAS

Telangana HC24 Aug 2023CC/1007/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition for non-implementation of an order regarding regularisation of services, the High Court held that it cannot examine the substantive eligibility criteria before a lower forum. The Court closed the contempt proceedings and directed the petitioner to challenge the rejection memo via appropriate legal channels for any further remedies.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed. Petitioner directed to challenge rejection memo dated 22.06.2023 through appropriate legal recourse.

P. Dhanalakshmi Vs Smt. Ranjeev R.Acharya… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY^{FOURTHDAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1007^{OF 2023}

¶7

Contempt Case under^{Sections 10 lo 12 of Contemptof Courts Act '1971,} to^punish the Respondent^{Nos.l and 2, for their willful disobedience orders} dated. 07.1 1.2022Passed^{in W.P. No.'1 1046 of 20'l4in O.A. No. 9395 of 20'10'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

P. Dhanalakshmi, Wo^{P. Ramakrishnaiah,Age 68 years,Worked as Part Time} ;ecturer in^political Science,(^{Retd) GovernmentDelreeCollege for MenNirmal,} Adilabad Dist.

¶10

CONTEMPT PETITIONER/RESPONDENT^{IN WRITPETITION}

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . Smt. Ranjeev R.Acharya, lAS, Principal Secretgry, Higher Education Departmdnt, Govt. of Telangana,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad.}

¶13

Navin Mittal, lAS, Commissioner^{of Collegiate Education, Govt of Telangana'} Hyderabad

¶14

...CONTEMNORS/WRIT^{PETITIONERNOs.'l & 2.}

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl.PRABHAKARCHIKKUDU}

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent^{no.1: NoneAppeared}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent^{no.2:GP FORSERVICESI}

¶18

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND IION'I}LE Szu JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶20

C.C.No .1007 of 2023

¶21

ORDER:^(Per Hon'bh Si Ja itt lbhitand Ktnar Shaai/i)

¶22

This contempt case is filed complaining wilful 1n disobedience on the part of the respondenrs implen-renting the order dated 07.11.2002 passed by this (-ourt in V'.P.No.11046 of 2011.

¶23

Whcn the matter is raken up for hearing, Iearned ()overnmcnt Pleadcr appearing for the respondents had informed this Cor-rrt that in pursuance of the order dated 01.11.2002 passed by this Coun in W.P.No.11046 of 2014, the case of the peritioner was considered and rejected aide Memo datccl 22.06.2023. Learned (iove rnment Pleader had further contended that numbcr of im,rgilation dutres assigned ro the peritioner rvas taken into consideration for the pulpose of

¶24

¶25

¶26

calculating the number of davs for regl.riarizadon of his se,rviccs and in spite oi coulrring the ini,-igilaticn davs. rhc pctitioner is not satisfyrng the conditions as set out in G.O.Ms.No.221., dated 20.06.1995 anC hencc, he is not eligible for regtlaization of his serwices.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had cr)ntended that though thc petitioncr has completcd 410 days, the respondents havc dclibcrately and r.villfull,v not counted the entire davs worked by rhe^petitioner.

¶28

Havrng considerecl the rival subrr,jssions n'rade bv thc learned counsel on either sicie, tirrs Court is of thc considered view drat pursuant to the order 07.11..2002 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11.046 of 201.1, rhc respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and rejected uideNlemo dated 22.06.2023 as the petitioner is not fulfilling the eligibiliry criteria for regolarrzation of

¶29

¶30

his sen,iccs as scr our in G.O.Ms.No.221, dated

¶31

20.06.1995.In contcmpt case, this Court cannor examine

¶32

the issue as to rvhcthcr the petrtioner has completed 410 davs or not.

¶33

Accordinglv, the contempt case is closed. However, if the petitioncr is still aggrieved, he is at liberry to

¶34

challenge the rcjcction N,Iemo dated 22.06.2023, 1n

¶35

accordancc rvith lau.

¶36

I'Iiscellaneous peritions, if any, pending shall stand

¶37

closed

¶38

Sd/. K. SAILESHI OEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

Two CCs^{to the GP for Servicesl, High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶43

z. oir"-cC^{to bRt. pneeHnKAaCHIKKUDU, Advocate[oPUc]}

¶44

Two CD^CoPies

lj, "'>4

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410812023

-::
t -,
o
,.t
4 A^t , v*
Q1 \Y
s* l! ,t
c S\ .o
J l;9ts +

ORDER

GC.No.1007 of 2023

CLOSING THE CC

)5
\

P. Dhanalakshmi v. Smt. Ranjeev R.Acharya, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Dhanalakshmi v. Smt. Ranjeev R.Acharya, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National High School Vs The State of Telangana

A. Bal Reddy Vs Somesh Kumar C

Rudrapratap Indian Logistics (Hyderabad) Private Limited Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Devathoti Dhanaraju Vs R.Muthyala Raju, I.A.S

K. Ravinder Vs Smt. Ranjeev R.Acharya, IAS

The State of a.P.,Transport,Randb.,Hyd.,and Anr. Vs Sri B. Manikyam, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.