Dismissed

Narendra Agrawal v. Dr K. Anand Kumar and 2 Others

Telangana HC23 Sept 2024CC/2226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case regarding non-payment of consequential benefits after reinstatement, the Single Judge held that the claimed performance pay was not within the scope of that order and the payment dispute was sub judice in a separate writ petition, thus closing the contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Case (No. 2226 of 2022) is closed.

Narendra Agrawal Vs Dr K. Anand Kumar and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

l2f,e7¹

¶2

! I i I I I I I ! I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY^{THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶7

CONTEMPT CASE^{NO;2226 0F 2022}

¶8

contempt case filed^{under Sections1o to 12 of the contempt of courts Act,} to punistr the espondents^{herein, for willfully' deliberately.and-9!e1!919ttVtto{1ng,,} OLiying anO disob'eying^{the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 17.09.2019 passedrn} W.P.No. 38211 of 2018.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Narendra Agrawal, S/o^{Late Shri Nathulal} .Agrawal,^{Ag.ed,aP,oui 5-4-y-eats;} Occ. Chief^"HR Manaqer,^{lndianlmmunologicalsLimited, Hyderabad'(A} WhollvownedSubsidiaryoftheNationalDairyDevelopmenttsoard)'l-{oao No.44, Jubilee Hills,^{HYderabad- 33}

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Dr K. Anand Kumar,^{ManagingDirector, lndianlmmunologicalLimited'} Hvderabad^(A Whollv Owned^{-Subsidiary of the National DairyDevelopment} B6ard), Road^{No 44. Jubilee Hills. Hyderabad - 33.}

¶14

2 Mr, Meenesh Shah,^{Chairman, lndian immunological Limited, Hyderabad(A} Whollv Owned Subsidrary^{of the NationalDairy bevelopment Board),Road} No.44, Jubilee Hills.^{Hyderabad - 33.}

¶15

1 Mr M C. Muthiah,^{General Manager - HR, lndianlmmunological Limited'} iroerauaO^(A Whollv^{OwnedSubaidiaryof the National DairyDevelopment} B6ard). Road^{No 44.'JubileeHrlls.Hyderabad - 33}

¶16

...Contemnors

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner^{:Sri NarendraAgrawal}

¶18

Counsel for Respondent^{Nos. 1 & 3 :Sri G. Vidhya Sagar,Senior Counsel} representing Sri Sai Prasen^Gundavaram

¶19

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶20

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶23

CONTEMPT CASE No.2226 of 2o22

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Contempt Case is filed for non compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Oourt in w.P.No.382 1 1 0f 20 18, dated 17.09.2019.

¶26

Heard Sri Narendra Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Vidhya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

¶27

It has been contended by the petitioner that he was terminated from service uide order dated 1 1 . 10.20 1g. Aggrieved by the said orders of termination, the petitioner has approached this Court by hling W.p.No.3B2 1l of 2O1g and this Court was pleased to set aside the orrlers of termination and directed the respondents to reinst;lte the petitioner into service with continuity of sen,ice zrnd all consequential benefits. Though the order ol this Cor.trt has been complied with by reinstating the petitioner into service, consequential benefits have not been paid. A.s the

¶28

¶29

AKS,J C,C.No.2226^ol2022

¶30

i t l : l

¶31

! : i I J : I ! l I ! i

¶32

a : ; i I Ii

¶33

jI i ! II I I

¶34

respondents^{have not complied with the order passed by this} Court in letter^{and spirit, the present ContemptCase is filed'}

¶35

Learned counsel for^{the petitioner had contendedthat} only basic salary^{and other benefits were paid to the} petitioner, however,^{performance incentiveswere not paid'} whereas performance^{incentives have been paid to other} employees. In the^{case of persons who wereappointed along} with the petitioner,^{there was no termination and they are all} drawing more^{pay than that of the petitioner' He had further} contended that^{orders passed by this Court were also} confirmed by a^{Division Bench of this Court in W'A'No'143 of} 2Ol7 uide^{judgmentdated O4'O1'2021'Therefore'} appropriate orders^{be passed in the ContemptCase and} summon the respondents^{and punish them for deliberately} violating the order^{passed by this Court under Sections1O} and 12 of the^{Contemptof CourtsAct, 197 l'}

¶36

Learned Senior^{Counsel appearing for the respondent} had contended that^{all the benefits, consequent upon setting} aside the termination^{orders passed by this Court' were}

¶37

¶38

A K S..l t^(r.,r 1116 ol l0ll

¶39

¶40

I I I I

¶41

extended to the^{petitioner and the respondents havo paidthe}

¶42

following amounts^{to the petitioner}

¶43

Basic^pay Rs.77,621/ 2. HRA Rs.22,286 /'

¶44

.3. Conveyance Rs. 1 1,643- 15ps. 4. Medical reimbursement Rs.1,25Ol 5. SAS Allowance Rs.6,645-83^ps. Gross Total Rs. 1,2O,266-28^ps.

¶45

Rounded to Rs.|,2O,266 /-

¶46

The salary deductions are as^follots: 1. Provident F\nd@,12%^{: Rs.9.315/} 2. Welfare Fund : Rs.50/' 3. Professional Tax : Rs.200/ Total Deductions : Rs.9,565/-

¶47

Learned Senior Counsel^{for thc respondetlts l-rad lurther} contended that as the^{petitioner ri:rs initietll-r appointecl as a} contract employee and his contract^{e mplo,r ment is being} extended from time to time,^{he calltrot claim btrnefits b1'} treating him to be a regular^{emplor.ee.What ar e all the} benefits to which the^petitioner is entitled^{to as E (rorltract} employee were aII paid. Hence,^{theque stior-tof violatingthe} Court orders would not arise.^{Therelore.leart.rt'C Setlior}

¶48

(

¶49

¶50

AKS.J C C No 2226 o12022

¶51

Counsel prays that appropriate orders be passed in the Contempt Case by closing the Contempt Case, as admittedly, all the consequential benefits, to rvhich the petitioner 1S entitled to were paid consequen t upon setting aside the termination order.

¶52

Learned Senior Cour-rsel appearirrg for the respondents had informed this Court that again the services of the petitioner vsere terminated and for the ven. sarne relief, he has also approached this Court b_v filing another Writ petition and the same is pending. The reliefs ivhich have been prayed in the contempt case are alread-r pursued b_r.the petitioner in the said Writ Petition. Thcrefore, no contem pt is made out and the respondents have complied rr.ith tl.ie order passed by this Court in its due letter:rnd spirir.

¶53

Having considered thc rir.al conrentions made by learned counsel appearing [or both sides. this Court is of the considered view that the rcspondetlts ha,e paicl the amounts such as basic pav, HRA. Conr.c-r'ance, Mcdical reimbursement and SAS ailoit ance ro rlr.r petirioner. As lar as the claim of the petitioner that he rs entirled lor pcrformance pa,1 is

¶54

)

¶55

\KS.I ,) ll16 ol l{lll

¶56

i I I ! ,:

¶57

\ \

¶58

concerncd, this Court never directs that the petitiotrer should be paid performance pay. Admittediy, the petitioner has not performed duties from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement into service in pursuance to the ordt:rs passed by this Court. Therefore, the claim made in respect of performance pay, that too in a contempt case.^,,vould not arise, as this Court was informed that the petitioner has alreadl' taken steps to claim performance par,l' and other benefits by way of hling a separate Writ Petition to challenge the termination orders. Thus, this Court cannol examine u.hether the petitioner is entitled for perform:rnce pav, rnedical reimbursement and other issues, as the scope of contempt ls very limited, it cannot be vitiated

¶59

I . Admittedly, the petitioner \:AS paicl all the consequentiai benehts except the claim of the pctitioner that he is entitled for performance pay. Not' the rssllc as to ri hether the petitioner has to be treated as regnlar e mplo,r'ee or contract employee, which is the subject matrer. has to be :rcljudicated only by way of Writ Petition bLrt not lrr rva-r o[ Contempt Case.

AK5.]

C C No l216^{ol l02l}

¶64

With the^{above observations,the Contempt Case is} closed. - It is^{made clear that the petitioneris entitled to} pursue his remedies^{with regard to claimof performancepay} and reguiar^{pay scale, if he has been regularlv engaged'}

¶65

¶66

,/TRUE^COPY//

¶67

Sd/. I.^{NAGA LAKSHMI} DEPUT:GISTRAR

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

One CC to Sri^{NarendraAgrawal, Advocate [OPUC^]-..} 2. 5.#;6 iI s-ri'sli^{Firi"n dundavaram'AdvocateIoPUC]} 3. Two CD^CoPies Njbleh

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310912024

ORDER

t
,l
,l i 'i lfr?l
...'/

¶77

CC.No.2226 ot 2022

¶78

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

¶79

B\ I

Narendra Agrawal v. Dr K. Anand Kumar and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Agrawal v. Dr K. Anand Kumar and 2 Others

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

Raees Unissa Vs Shaikh Chand Basha

B. Shekhar Yadav Vs P. Kotaiah

Sri. N. KeshavaRao Vs Smt. N. v. Lakshmi Alias Lakshmi Srinivas

Md. Shah Jalaluddin Quadri Vs L.Kishan

Vpr Constructions Vs Dr.S. Sudheer Kumar The Registrar

J. Rambai Vs Smt. G.H Shiv Kumari