Disposed

Shakeel Ahmed v. Smt.I.Rani Kumudini, IAS

Telangana HC14 Aug 2023CC/1594/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case filed under the Contempt of Courts Act to punish for violating an order setting aside a penalty, the alleged violation was found to be settled by a Government Memo dated 13.02.2023 relying on G.O.Ms.No.16. The Court held that it cannot go into the merits of the said proceedings under contempt jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; liberty to petitioner to challenge G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 21.06.2023 if so advised.

Shakeel Ahmed Vs Smt.I.Rani Kumudini, IAS — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1594OF 2023

¶7

Contempt Case filed Under Sections 10 lo 12 of Contempt^{of Courts Act to} punish the respondents herein for wilfully violating the Orders of the High Court daled 1511112022^passed in WP.No.17988/2020.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shakeel Ahmed, S/o. Md. Azmatullah, Aged about 57^{years, Superintendent,} Government lTI, Medchal on Deputation, Medchal^District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt.l.Rani Kumudini, lAS, The State of Telangana,^{Principal Secretary,} Labour, Employment Training and Factories^(Emp-Vig) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

Sri Ahmed Nadeem, FAC, The Director of Employment^{Training, TS,} Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. RANGARAJULA RAJASEKHARA^RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES^I

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HON,BLE MRS^{JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶19

co NTEMPT^{CAE No.t594 oF223}

¶20

o RDER:

¶21

Heard the^{tearned counselfor the petitioner and} learned Governrment^{Pleader for Services-tr appearing} on behalf^{of the resPondents'}

¶22

This Court^{passeclorders in W'P'No';15'1t'2022on}

¶23

15.LL.2022,^{in padicular,Para 10 reads as under:}

¶24

"Taking into consideration^{the above referredfacts} and circumstances,^{the Writ Petition is allowed setting} aside the^{impugnedG'O'Ms'No'23,Labour'} employment,^{Training &} Factories^(Emp-Vig) Department,^{clated19.09.2020 and the respondents are} directed to^{re-consider the declsion of treatingthe} suspension^{per-iod of the petitionerfrom 20'06'1998to} 08.08.2001^{as 'not on duty' aftergivingnotice to the} petitioner duly considering^{the explanationrof the} petitioner to the show^{cause notice to be issued to the} petitioner inclependently, duly^{consideringthe fact that} the petitioner had been^{promotedasOffice} superintenderrt on^{08.08.2016 itself andpass} appropriate specific^{orders itr accordanceto lanr within} a period of three (3) weeks^{from the date of receiptof a} copy of the orcler duly communicating^{the same to the} petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs^"

¶25

¶26

¶27

Learned Government Pleader for Services -I referring to G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 2L.06.2023 submits that the order of this Court dated 15.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.179BB of 2020 had been complied with after giving show cause notice to the petitioner vide Government Memo No.1093/EmpVig/A2/2000, dated:13.02.2023, and therefore the present Contempt Case needs to be closed.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of this Couft dated 15.11.2022 has not been complied with in true spirit and the fact that the petitioner had been promoted as OfFice Superintendent on 08.08.2016, itself had been totally ignored by the respondent authority.

¶29

In view oF the fact that the orders of this Court dated 15.7L.2022 passed in W.P.No.179BB of 2020 had been complied with after giving show cause notice to the^petitioner vide Government Memo No.1093/Emp-vig/A2/2000, dated 13.02.2023 vide G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 21.06.2023 hence, this Court opines that this Court cannot^go into the merits of the said proceedings G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 21.06.2023 under Contempt^{jurisdiction.}

¶30

Accordingly, the contempt^{case is closedgiving liberty} to the^petitioner to challenge^{theproceedingsvide} G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 21.06.2023, if^{so advised. However,}

¶31

there shall be no order as to^costs.

¶32

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous^{applications,if any,}

¶33

shall stand closed.

¶34

Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISJ'RAR

¶35

//TRUE COPY// ]l SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

' Smt.l.Rani Kumudini,^{lAS, The State of Telangana, Principal Secretary,} f-aUorr, Employmeni^{Training and Factories (Emp-Vig)Department,} Secretariat,^HYderabad.

¶38

Sri Ahmed^{Nadeem,FAC,The Director of Employment Training, TS,} Hyderabad.

¶39

One CC to^{SRl. RANGARAJULA RAJASEKHARA RAO Advocate[OPUC]}

¶40

Two CCs to GP^{FOR SERVICESI} ,High^{Court for the State of Telangana'} tourl

¶41

Two CD CoPies

Ff-

E irrE r-=-

HIGH COURT

DATED:14l08/2023

ORDER

CC.No.1594 ol2O23

$E STAI e,
+
tz
(,)
[ 7 0E[ 2[23
))
+
*
I
cl
i'> '|::,,-i'_r.

¶49

C.C. IS CLOSED

¶50

8^(("1 w---_-4fl

Shakeel Ahmed v. Smt.I.Rani Kumudini, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeel Ahmed v. Smt.I.Rani Kumudini, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Namireddy Karunakar Reddy Vs The Ministry of External Affairs

Mohammed Jahangir Vs The State Bank of India

M. Sunita Sunita Jain Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

M/S. Landmark Constructions Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Poosa Rajamani, Sec-Bad. Vs M/S. State Bank of India and 2 Ors.

Shri T.Konda Reddy, S/o. Mohan Reddy, Vs The Govt.of India reptd.