Sake Obilesu, vs Satish Chandra,
2023 Latest Caselaw 990 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

              CONTEMPT CASE No.442 of 2021

Between:

Sake Obilesu, S/o Sake Marenna, aged about 45 years, Occ:
Steward, R/o D.No.1/80, Raptadu Village & Mandal,
Ananthapur District and 24 others.
                                            ... Petitioners

                            And
Sri Satish Chandra, Special Chief Secretary, Department of
Higher Education, Government of A.P., A.P. Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi and 3 others.

                                                  ... Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners : Sri M. Pitchaiah learned counsel

Counsel for respondents : Sri Penjuri Venugopal, learned counsel

ORDER:-

The above contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12

of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to summon and punish the

respondents for commission of criminal contempt of court by

issuing the so called speaking order, dated 05.11.2020 thereby

lowering the authority of this Court and for obstructing

administration of justice by not implementing the order, dated

29.08.2020 in W.P.No.19523 of 2018.

2. W.P.No.19523 of 2018 was filed seeking Writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not

regularizing the service of petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, Page 2 of 6 SRS,J C.C.No.442 of 2021

violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India,

besides violation of principles of natural justice and

consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the

petitioners' services, counting their entire service for the

purpose of retirement benefits and to direct the respondents to

pay arrears of salary together with interest at 12% per annum

etc.

3. The said writ petition along with other writ petitions was

disposed of by a common order. The operative portion of order

reads as follows.

"Hence, in view of the above judgment, there shall be a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners forthwith subject to the petitioners possessing other requisite qualifications."

4. Present contempt case is filed alleging that by passing

speaking order, the order of learned Single Judge is being

openly defied.

5. Counter affidavit was filed by 4th respondent. It was

contended inter alia that the University examined eligibility of

each of the petitioners in compliance of the orders of this Court

and found that none of the petitioners have fulfilled the

eligibility criteria as per para 53 of Umadevi's case (referred to Page 3 of 6 SRS,J C.C.No.442 of 2021

supra) and passed speaking order, dated 18.09.2020 rejecting

request of the petitioners to regularize service. Copy of

proceedings, dated 18.09.2020 was communicated to the

petitioners. 4th respondent also tendered unconditional apology

for the delay in implementing the order.

6. In view of the contentions extracted supra, the point to be

considered is whether the respondents violated or failed to

implement the order dated 29.08.2019 passed in W.P.No.19523

of 2018?

7. Heard learned counsel on either side.

8. As can be seen from the speaking order dated 18.09.2020,

it was pointed out that neither the petitioners were appointed

against the sanctioned posts nor rule of reservation was

followed. Petitioners were appointed as daily wage/NMR

employees. Other reasons were also assigned in the order dated

18.09.2020.

9. In J.S.Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and Others1, the

Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows.

".... Once there is an order passed by the Government on the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh

(1996) 6 SCC 291 Page 4 of 6 SRS,J C.C.No.442 of 2021

cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. ..."

10. In the case on hand, pursuant to the order, dated

29.08.2019 in W.P.No.19523 of 2018, respondents, in fact,

considered the case of the petitioners and passed speaking

orders.

11. Along with W.P.No.19523 of 2018, W.P.No.19419 of 2018

was also disposed of. Complaining violation of the order in

W.P.No.19419 of 2018, C.C.No.779 of 2021 was filed. Learned

Single Judge of this Court closed C.C.No.789 of 2021 on the

ground that there is no willful violation of the orders passed by

this Court. Against said closure, the petitioners therein filed LPA

No.4 of 2021. The said LPA was dismissed as not maintainable.

12. In view of the above, since the petitioners' case was

considered pursuant to the order, dated 28.09.2019 and Page 5 of 6 SRS,J C.C.No.442 of 2021

speaking orders were passed, which were communicated to each

of the petitioners vide Lr. C3/Estt./JNTUA/Time Scale/2020,

dated 18.09.2020, it doesn't amount to defying the order of this

Court dated 29.08.2019 in W.P.No, 19523 of 2018.

13. In view of the above discussion, this contempt case is

closed. No costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

                                    ______________________________
                                    JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date: 21.02.2023
ikn
 Page 6 of 6                              SRS,J
                                         C.C.No.442 of 2021

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

CONTEMPT CASE No.442 of 2021

Date: 21.02.2023

ikn