Disposed

Sd. S Jani, v. Sri Munisekhar

Telangana HC13 Apr 2023CC/1370/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court disposed of Contempt Case No. 1370 of 2014 regarding the petitioner's claim for continuity of service. The court held that since the issue was already adjudicated by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 183 of 2022, no contempt can be alleged against the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case No. 1370 of 2014 is closed. Miscellaneous pending applications are closed.

Sd. S Jani, Vs Sri Munisekhar — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1370 OF 2014

¶7

Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971, to punish the Respondents for willfully violating the orders passed by Hon'ble Court dated 19-01-2012 passed in W.P.No. 1027 ot 2012

¶8

Between:

¶9

9d.^{S Jani,, S/o Karim, Driver,E 322822, Karimnagar- ll depot, Rl/oVavilalapally,} Karimnagar dist.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . Sri Munisekhar, RegionallManager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar.

¶13

Sri Mallesam, Depot Manager, APSRTC. Karimnagar-l depot, Karimnagar.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. GOVINDA RAJULU

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: DANDA RADHIKA (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

.tIIE IIO]'I}LE, SRI .IUS'I'ICTI A. AI}HISIiEK I.IF],t)DY

¶19

( ON'IEMPT CASII No.l370 of 2014

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Alleg' n1:violation olthe order datcd 19.01 :lr)lll passed by this Cour in Writ Pctitiorr No. I027 c,f 20 1., lhc rvrit pct ilioner/cm1 lc,yee has fllcd the present Conternpt^(.'asc 2. l'hrs^(l rurt has allorvcd thc prcscllt V/r t Petition

¶22

No. t027 ol- 2tll2 vide ordcr dated 19.0 1 .201 2. rvlrir:lrcads as

¶23

under

¶24

''.l lrc ,vrit petitiorrcr has bccrr appolrtcd as a I)rivc , rr 11.05 l0r)7 on contracl basis in thc Arrdhra Prrdcslr I tr c I{ortd I-rrnsport Corporation (APSR'l('). llc rrrrs tcnr,', rl fro I 'cr'.,rcc on tlre^qroLrnd trl'involvcnrcrrt in ;n a.rci( (r'l ,\11 rit c<lly- rro crrquirt lras L:rccrr co dtrctccl bcl rrc ltirss r 9 thc lrrn,lval ordcr'. Srrbscclucrtll. thc pctiticncr s rr' cn-r ag d rfrcslr.

¶25

lh: ltricvance ol- tlrc petitionct is tlrat !l rle iss r r g ortlcrs of rc-cngagenlcnt, thc rcspontlcnts lrav. nr)t ext,:nrcd the bcncllt ol contirruitv ol-scrvrcc. It ls rl.o strhnri terl tlrat a batch ol'\r'it petitiorrs havc becn ,rllo'r, d gra rti g llrc bcncfit ol' continLritr of scrvir e lbr I c in tt rrr^qnLrnr pcriod.

¶26

Ac:ordirrgly 111g^r,,rit petitiorr is allorved lrrrlclrnq tlra^,l c Pct^{ti,. rcr is cntitled to tl)c bcnclltof conlinrrir\ ol- scr, ,.c} bct',rc n the datc rrl' tcrnrination and thc drtc cl rr cnga!r nrenl. lrorvcri:r'. llc ls not crrtitlcd lirr an', nrolclil') llcrt,. ll ,' r aicoUrll ol tllr., rr'liel.'

¶27

'l-hc lcarrcd co[u1scl appcaringon bcharlc,l-tlrr pr.titioner

¶28

has producr:cl bcfbre this C'ourt a gtpy ot' .ir.rdrrrrrcnt dated

¶29

¶30

AAR. J C.C.No l37O ot 20t1

¶31

15.03-2022 rendered by the Division Bench of rhis Court in Writ Appeal No. 183 of 2022, which was filed by the employer as against the order dated 27.08.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2l24l of 2012, and stated that the issue involved in the present Writ petition No. 1027 of 20lZ and Writ Petition No.2l24 I of 20lZ is one and rhe same. That as against the order dated 27.08.20 12 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2l24 I of 20 12, the employer has preferred Writ Appeal No.l83 of 2022 and rhe Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 15.03.2022 has allowed the said Writ Appeal by setring aside the order of this Court dated 27 .08.2012 in Writ Petition No.2 l24l of 2012 to rhe extenr of granting the benefit of past service lor the purpose of regularization. The copy of judgment dared 15.03.2022 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 183 of 2022 is also placcd on record.

¶32

A perusal of the copy of judgrncnt dated 15.03.2022 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.l83 of 2022 discloses thar the Division Bench of this Court

¶33

has allowed the said Writ Appeal by setting aside the order of

¶34

/ /

¶35

,T{R, J I C :o lJ70 of 20l.l

¶36

¶37

this Courr <l,acd21 .0g.20 l2 in Writ pctition No.2t.t4 I ot-2012 to the extcnt ol granting the benefit of pzrst scrr,icc lor the purpose of :e; 1r-rlarization.

¶38

Having regard to the subrnission of the lcarrrcd counsel fbr the petiti< ncr thal thc issue involvcd in thc prcsc.nt Writ Petirion No I(27 of 2012 and Writ petitiorr No 212.1I of 20l2 is one and thc santc and as the similar issuc has rrlrearly bcen decided by th,: l)ivision lJench olthis Courr irr l,rror:.olthc ernplol'er r,.dr .judgrncnt dated 15.03.2022 in \,rit Appeal No.l83 of 2(,2.t, l-lo contelnpt can be allcgcd lltai tst the respondcnis in the prescnt contelnpt case also.

¶39

Accorclirgly, this Contempt Case is closcd

¶40

Miscellar Lc()us applications, if any pcn,1ing, :;hal stzrrrd

closed

To,

//TRUE COPY//

S.I/- IVI. MANJULA DEI'I]TY REGISTRAR \a)

¶45

SE()TIIf,N oFFICER

¶46

OneCC to SRl. F GOVTNDA RAJULU, Advocate [Optrc] 2 One CC to SRt. D \NDA RADHTKA (SC FOR APSRTC) [O,L,C] 3. Two CD Copies

¶47

Frn(,

¶48

HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 3104,'2023

¶49

ORDER

¶50

-?--a::==.:
,Z -- .rU :i f.r'
() .)
ii,"
/
/=1
tffi
l IJN
l.I ',:
.,
.
'i.

¶51

CC.No.1370 o" 2014

¶52

CLOSING THt: CONTEMPT CASE

¶53

ff".^C., ,-\6\4

Sd. S Jani, v. Sri Munisekhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sd. S Jani, v. Sri Munisekhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bheemagoni Srinivas Vs The Northern Power Distribution Company Limited

More Swamy, Vs The Northern Power Distribution Company Limited

Gouda Ramesh Vs The Northern Power Distribution company Limited

The Management of Express Publications and Anr. Vs Labour Court-I, Hyderabad and Anr.

Smt P. Kamalamma, Vs Sri G.V Ramana Rao

Suresh Kumar Vs Sri.Lokesh Kumar and 3 others