Dismissed

K.Narasimha v. Sandeep Kumar Sultania, Ias.

Telangana HC28 Aug 2023CC/1524/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition alleging violation of a High Court order, the Court observed that the respondents duly considered the petitioner's representation and passed a reasoned order rejecting it on merits. Thus, no violation occurred, and the contempt case was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

K.Narasimha Vs Sandeep Kumar Sultania, Ias. — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

132s7 |

i I ; I I ! ;

t l

'ⁱ t I J !

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶8

MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryTHREE

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶11

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1524 oF 2021

¶12

contempt case under section 10 to 12 0f contempt of courts Act to punish the Respondent herein for, wiilfuily viorating, the order of the High court dated 23-08-2021 passed in W.p.No. 15706 of 2021

¶13

Between:

¶14

K. Narasimha S/o K. Veeraiah, aged about 43 years, Occ. Sweeper in Dharmavant College of Science and Commerce (Aided) yakutpura, Hyderabad- Rl/o H.No 1 1 -1 -61 I 1 Zinakalawada, Near Sanathnagar Railway Station,Hyderabad-18

¶15

...PETITIONER

¶16

AND

¶17

1' Sandeep Kumar Surtania, rAS., The state of rerangana rep. by its principar Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat , Hyderabad.

¶18

K. Ramakrishna Rao, lAS, The State of Telangana, rep. by its principal Secretary, Finance and planning Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶19

Naveen fu'ritftar, rAS., The commissioner of coflegiate Education, Government of Telangana, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶20

v\ay Bhaskar, The Regionar Joint Director of Higher Education, Zone V Hyderabad.

¶21

Professor Suresh puri, The Secretary and Correspondent, Dharmavant College of Science and Commerce (Aided), yakutpura,Hyderabad_23.

¶22

6 Dr'M. Sridhar Reddy, The principar, Dharmavant colege of science and Commerce (Aided),^{yakutpura,Hyd} erabad_23.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

IANO:1OF2 021

¶25

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents herein to imprement the order passed by this court in W.P.No.15706 ol 202,1 dated 23t08t2021 forthwith

¶26

Counsel for the petitioner(s): SRt. SADU RAJESWARA REDDY counset for the Respondents: Gp FoR .ERVT.ES ucp FoR H'GH EDUCATTON Counsel for the Respondent No 5 & 6: SRl. J. VENKATARAM NARSIMHA

¶27

REDDY

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶30

CONT E MPT cASE No.1524 ot 2O2L

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Heard both sides. Perused the record

¶33

The petitioner has filed this contempt case alleging violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15706 of 2021 dated 23.08.202t

¶34

The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking regularization of his services in the aided post of watchman/sweeper or any other class-lv^post on the ground that he has put-in more than 19 years of service. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on par with the similarly situated persons and decide the issue in accordance with law, provided the petitioner makes a representation to that effect along with necessary documents in proof of his claim.

¶35

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter-affidavits. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is stated that pursuant to the orders of this Court in the writ petition, the petitioner has made a representation dated 07.09.2O2t, which was considered in terms of the remarks of respondent No.3 received vide letter No.CCE-ADMN/CCl5/2020-ADMN, dated rS.tt.2O2Z, and orders

¶36

Just'.e ruwadi S,idevi c.c.No,l524 012021

¶37

{'eie passed yde Governrnent Memo No. 1 7^-i 2 / CE / A2 / 202t, dated 17.11.2022, rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that he was a private ernployee appointed by the management of the college without following due procedure ano, that.the Government is not concerned with the appointment of petitioner as h is case does not fall under the scheme for regularization as notified in G.O.Ms.No.2 12. dated 22.04.rgg4.

¶38

5' In the counter-affidavit fired by responoent No.2, it is stated that tlrey are not concerned with the issrr cf reEurarization of petitioner's service and that no matters pertaining to the petitioner are pending with them

¶39

From a perusal of the cou n ter_affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is evident that the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents on 07.09.2021 pursuant to thre orders of this Court in W.P.No.15706 of 2021, dated 23.08.202t. On receipt of such representation, the respondents have examined the case of the petitioner after cailing for remarks from respondent No.3 and passed orders vide Government Memo No.177ZlCE/ A2/2021, dated L7.I1.2022 rejecting the request of the petitioner for the reasons recorded in the said order.

¶40

¶41

Justke luwadi Srid€vi C.C.No.l524 of 2021

¶42

i I I I I i

¶43

I i I i

¶44

Therefore, when the representation of the petitioner was considered and a reasoned order was passed rejecting such representation, it cannot be said that the respondents have viorated the orders of this Court in any manner, as the orders of this Court are to examine the representation oF the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no crisobedience to the orders passed by this Court and this contempt case is liablr: to be dismissed.

¶45

B Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed.

¶46

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

'StJJl+Rb'i!5,'JlH //TRUE COPYII @

¶48

To,

¶49

SECTION OFFICER

¶50

One CC to SRt. SADU RAJESWARA REDDY, Advocare tOpUCl 2. Two CCs to Gp FOR SERVTCES I ,High Court for the State of Telangana.

¶51

4.3 One CC to Sri. J. VENKATARAM NARASTMHA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI

¶52

4.3 Tow CCs to Gp for Higher Education [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies

PNO

HIGH COURT

JS, J

DATED: 2810812023

ORDER

{P-
l, - $ 4 fiii ?$8
'. ':^

¶60

CC.No.1524 ot 2021

¶61

DISMISSING THE CONTEMPT

¶62

CASE

K.Narasimha v. Sandeep Kumar Sultania, Ias.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Narasimha v. Sandeep Kumar Sultania, 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

M D Abdul Ali Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

P. Balram Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

G. Preethi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures Ltd. Vs Pushpender

Dhaemaseety Shiva Kumar Vs Prl.,Secy., Municipal Admin ., and Another

Neelam Lavanya, Hyd. Vs D.G., Niphm, Hyd. and 2 Ors.