THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.336 of 2021
ORDER:-
The writ petitioner herein, who was working as Head
Master of Government Ashram High School (Girls) of
Golagamudi Village, SPSR Nellore District had approached
this Court, by way of W.P.No.22545 of 2020. The grievance of
the petitioner was that even though he was born on
22.11.1961, his date of birth had been recorded as 22.11.1960
and that the notice issued by the 1st respondent in the writ
petition seeking retirement of the petitioner on 01.12.2020
instead of 30.11.2021 was arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional
and contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
India and Rule 2 of A.P. Public Employment (Recording &
Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984. This Court on
30.11.2020 had directed that the services of the petitioner
should be continued for a further period of three weeks
pending further order of this writ petition.
2. The petitioner has filed the present contempt case
contending that the respondents had refused to allow the
petitioner to continue in service despite the orders of this
Court and as such, they are in violation of the directions of
this Court and require to be punished under the Contempt
Courts Act.
2
3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit on
16.09.2021 taking two defenses. Firstly, that W.P.No.22545 of
2020 was itself dismissed on 18.08.2021 and secondly, that
the copy of the order of this Court was received by the 1st
respondent only on 03.12.2020 by which time the petitioner
had already retired from service. In view of the said situation,
the orders of this Court could not be complied with as the
order required continuation of service and there was a break
in continuing service by the time the order of the Court was
received.
4. Sri Raju learned counsel, appearing on behalf of
Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the dismissal of the writ petition would not
detract from the fact that the orders of this Court dated
30.11.2020 were not complied with and non compliance of the
said order cannot be condoned merely on the ground that the
final order in the case went against the petitioner. He relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem
Chandra Aragwal & Another Vs. U.P.Financial Corporation
& Ors.,1 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Singh and Ors.,2 to
buttress his contention.
5. There can be no quarrel with the principle put
forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that violation of
1 2009 (6) SCR 931 2 (2007) 15 SCC 688 3
the interlocutory orders of the Court cannot be condoned on
the ground of the final order going against the petitioner.
However, in the present case the direction by this Court was to
continue the petitioner in service which could not be done by
the respondents as the petitioner had already retired from
service by the time the order of this Court was served on the
respondents.
6. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to
continue the present proceedings against the respondents.
7. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 01.02.2022 RJS 4
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.336 of 2021
Date : 01.02.2022
RJS 5
