Disposed

Smt. L. Vijayalaxmi v. Sri R.Raghunandan Rao, IAS

Telangana HC13 Dec 2024CC/812/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a writ order directing reconsideration of family pension. Government produced compliance proceedings dated 21.10.2024. The petitioner disputed their sufficiency. The court held merits of the compliance proceedings cannot be examined in contempt jurisdiction and closed the case.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed with liberty to challenge the compliance proceedings dated 21.10.2024; no costs.

Smt. L. Vijayalaxmi Vs Sri R.Raghunandan Rao, IAS — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

IN THE^{H'GH COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE^{HONOURABLE MRS} JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

CONTEMPT C,ASE NO: 812 OF 2024

¶7

¶8

W.P. No. 32427 ot 2017

¶9

Contempt^{Casefiled under Sections10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct, 1971} to punish the^{respondents herein for their willfully disobeyingthe orders of the High} Court dated^{5.6.2023 made in W.P.No. 3242712017.}

¶10

Between;

¶11

Smt. L.^{Vijayalaxmi,Wo. LateL.Mohan Reddy, Aged. about 73 years,R/o} H.No.11.2.1826/2.^{Gangastan, Nizamabad, Nizmabad Dist/lct. ...Petitioner}

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Sri R.Raghunandan^{Rao. lAS,Principal Secretary to State of Telangana,} Agriculture^{and CooperationDept.,Secretariat,Hyderabad}

¶14

2 Sri R.Raghunandan^{Rao, lAS.Commissioner and Directorof Agriculture,} Govt.^{of Telangana,HYderabad.}

¶15

3 Sri Md.^{Wajid Hussain, Joint Director of AgricultureiDiskict AgricultureOfficer,} Nizamabad,^{Nizamabad Diskict.}

¶16

Smt.^{A Vlqyg Laxmi, Assistant Director} of Agriculture (R), Armoor, Nizamabad^District.

¶17

sri sri Jiten_d^ra- sudhakar Karape, I and AS. Accountant General, State of Telangana,^{Saifabad.Hyderabad.}

¶18

.,.Contemnors/Respondents

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶20

: Sri. M Bharat Shah

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 4 : Gp FOR SERVICES lll

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: Sri M. Murali Krishna

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶25

COrureUpr CaSe no.8l In W.P No.32427 ot 2Ot7

¶26

oioen:

¶27

Heard Sri M. Bharat Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services III, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 3, Sri M. Murali Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6

¶28

This Contempt Case is filed complaining disobedience of the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. No.32427 of 2017.

¶29

The relevant^{portion of the judgment dated} 05,06.2023^{passed in W.P' No' 32427 ol2Ot7 )n} particular^{para No.15 is extractedhereunderl}

¶30

"15.^{This CoLrrt opines that the familypensiondue to} the^{petitioner cannot be denied to the petitioner} irrationally,^{illegally on the groundthat the service} records of^{the deceasedemployeeare not traceable'} Taking into^{:onsideration the aforesaid facts and}

¶31

il c,c. 8t2 2024

¶32

circumstances of the^{case, and the law laid downby} the Apex Court in^{Dr. Umar Aoarwal Vs' State of} n r 19 2 (SC) and also Rule 4 of A.P. Government^Servant (Family Pension) Rules,^{1964 (referred to and extracted} above), the writ^{petition is allowed as prayed for and} the impugned^{ProceedingsLr.No.Pen(1)2193/13,dated} 03.09.2016 of^{the 2"d respondent is hereby set aside} and the respondents^{are directed to reconsiderthecase} of the.petitioner^{for fixation and payment of family} pension, duly releasing^{all the arrears of familypension} with consequential^{benefitswithinterest from the date} of death of the^{petitioner'shusbandtill the actual} payment is made^{within a period of two weeksfrom the} date of receipt^{of the copy of this order,and pass} appropriate^{orders duly communicatingthe decision to} the petitioner.^{However,there shalt be no orderas to} costs".

¶33

Learned Government^{Pleader for Services-Ill'in the} Contempt Case^{places on record the proceedingsNo'} ADMN-A/A(2) /Couftl2O}4,^{dated21'10'2024issuedby the} Director of^Agriculture, Hyderabad,^{TelanganaState and} submits that^{the order} of this Court^{dated 05'06'2023} passed in W.P. No.^{32427 of 2Ol7had been complied with} for grant of^familY Pension.

ca 812 1024

Learned counsel appearing^{on behalfof the}

¶39

\ \

¶40

petitioner submits that the Proceedings^{dated 21'10'2024is} not in true compliance of^{the order of this Court dated} 05.06.2023^passed in^{W.P. No. 32427 of 2Ol7 and the} same is depriving the^{rights of the petitioner for family} pension.

¶41

\ \

¶42

This Court opines that^{themerits ofthe} Proceedings dated 21.1O'2O24^{issued by the Director} of Agriculture, Hyderabad^{TelanganaStatein} pursuance to the order of this Court dated^O5.O6.2O23 passed in W.P. No. 32427 ol 2017, cannot^{be gone} into in Contempt Case^{jurisdictionand the Contempt} Case is closed^giving liberty^{to the petitioner to assaal} the Proceedings dated^{2L.LO.2O24and to pursue the} remedies as are available to the^{petitioner againstthe} speaking order dated zL.tO.2024^{issued bythe} Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad,^{Telangana State} issued in compliance to the directions of this^Court dated 05.06.2023^passed in W.P. No.32447^{of 2O17.} Accordingly the Contempt Case is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

cc 812 2024

Miscellaneous^petitions, if any,^{pendingshallstand}

closed.

//TRUE COPY//

/ Sd/. K. SAILESHI E UTY REGISTRAR

¶51

ECTION OFFICER

¶52

¶53

One CC to Sri. M Bharat Shah,^Advocate [OPUCI

¶54

2.TwoCCstoGPFoRSERVICESlll,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana louTl

¶55

One CC to Sri M.^{Murali Krishna,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶56

Two CD Copies

DL/ghw

HIGH COURT

DATED:131121202,4

ORDER

CONTEMPT CA SE NO : 812 OF 2024 IN

¶62

W.P. No.3 247 ol 2017

¶63

HE S l'.r l'i 04
(
(<br>q
3 21 t[3 2025 a
t) F.q r 16 1r: vlt'
'_

¶64

--.::

¶65

CLOSING THE CONTEMIPT CASE.

¶66

uPR'$ tu

¶67

Smt. L. Vijayalaxmi v. Sri R.Raghunandan Rao, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. L. Vijayalaxmi v. Sri R.Raghunandan Rao, 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/s. Icsa(India ) Limited Vs The Chief General Manager (Project Andrac)

Aishwarya Poultry Farm Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.

Arjula Indrasena Reddy Vs Damera Thamas

M/s Dhanalakshmi Iron Industries Limited Vs A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, rep. by its

Agiru Narender Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Kalvakuntla Vijitha Rao Vs The State of Telangana