Contempt case over non-implementation of a High Court order concerning pension recovery and repayment. Respondent authorities reported release of the remaining amount via banker's cheque dated 12-09-2024; the court closed the contempt case without costs.
Contempt case closed with no orders as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I I I
[3302 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE K. SARATH
CONTEMPT CASE NO i 58 0F 2024
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1g71 to punish the respondents herein for wilfuly disobeying and deliberately violating the orders of the High Court dated 21-7-2023 passed in W.p. 16700t2021.
Between:
...PETITIONER
AND
...CONTEMNORS
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to repay the recovered amount i.e., 6,98,488/to the Petitioner and also fix his pension on the last drawn pay i.e., Rs.7S,1501 as per the Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980 by duly implementing the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 16700 ot2021 ,dated21-7-20i3.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. K UDAYA SRI
Counsel for the Respondents:K RAM MURTHY
Counsel for the RespondentNo. 3: G.P.FORSERVTCES-I
<br>
The Court made the following:ORDER:-
\
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
coNTEMPT CASE No.58 OF 2o24
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearingfor the respondents. 2. Today, when the matteris taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel forthe respondents submits that the respondent-authorities havereleased the remaining amount through banker'scheque dated 12.O9.2024, which is due to thepetitioner. In view of the same, the cause in the ContemptCase does not survive and requested to close the ContemptCase.
\
Sd/- B. SAWAVATHI DY. REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
SECTTON OFFICER
To:-
(
HIGH COURT
DATED:2010912024
; STAiI
7:
,
U ilL, tutE o
>
\; A
t OESPAl
ORDER
CC.No.58 of 2024
CONTEMPT CASE IS CLOSEI)
Ir
L , ,01,u.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt case should be closed given that respondent-authorities have released the remaining amount due to the petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
G.Bhasker
Prof. B.Ramesh, Registrar, Potti Sree Ramulu Telugu University
Sri Krishna Murthy, Audit Officer, Potti Sree Ramulu Telugu University
Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, Director, Local Fund State Audit, Government of Telangana
K. Sarath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
