Unknown vs Mr. Pradeep Yadav
2023 Latest Caselaw 3609 AP

            HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                  CONTEMPT CASE No.2040 of 2023

ORDER :

The Contempt Case is filed against the respondents/

contemnors and punish them under Section 10 to 12 of the

Contempt of Courts Act for their willful disobedience of non-

implementing the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by this

Court in WP No.28407 of 2022 as modified in the order

dated 22.12.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court

in W.A No.1028 of 2022.

2. Heard Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri,

learned counsel and Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. This Court vide order dated 06.09.2022 has

disposed of the writ petition in W.P.No.28407 of 2022. The

operative portion of the said order as follows:

"Having regard to the facts and circumstances and without touching the merits of the case, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 27.07.2022 of the petitioners, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Jagjit Singh and others1, for payment minimum pay scale to the petitioners, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

2017 (1) SCC 148

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs"

4. Thereafter, the respondents herein preferred an

appeal vide W.A.No.1028 of 2022 before a Division Bench of

this Court and the same was disposed of by modifying the

order of the learned Single Judge. The operative portion of

the said order as under:

"Writ petitioners are at liberty to submit appropriate representations before all the concerned authorities for redressal of their grievances within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such representations, the same e examined and appropriate orders be passed by the authorities concerned strictly in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter. It is also made clear that the Writ Petitioners are entitled to place on record the relevant judgments, if any, for consideration of the same by the authorities concerned.

Accordingly, the Order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby modified. There shall be no order as to costs."

5. Counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent

denying all the averments made in the petition. It is stated

that the claim of the petitioners and the issues thereon

involves the disputed question of facts which shall be

adjudged on full fledged trial/enquiry as upheld by Hon'ble

Apex Court in a similar issue fell for consideration reported

in 2001 (7) SCC pg.1. Admittedly, the nature of work

discharged by the petitioners is not similar when compared

with regular employees attached to the corresponding posts.

This respondent is not having any of the posts which are

regular as stated by the petitioners and they never engaged

against vacancy related to corresponding cadre of regular

posts. It is further stated that non-payment of dues by

APSPDCL in time resulted in enhancement of the Bank

Guarantee/Letter of credit and even stoppage of supply to

the APSPDCL by the generators for the subsequent month,

which affected the uninterrupted supply of electricity as well

as credibility of APSPDCL from imposing additional financial

burden in the form of LPS and all these issues shall be

taken into account which are important and necessary and

in due consideration of the same the orders are issued duly

rejecting the claim of the petitioners.

6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent

No.3 denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is

stated that the APTRANSCO has received the

representations from few outsourced workers i.e., one from

Sri Md. Venatesh Babu and 30 others and another from Sri

S.Mohammadali and 22 others and Sri T.Jayaramudu and

38 others engaged through third party Man Power Agencies

as Shift Operators and watch and wards to provide

minimum time scale comparable to the pot held by regular

employees is examined and a reply is also communicated to

the petitioners vide letter dated 22.02.2023. Thereafter, the

committee vide TOO Ms.No.632 in 2017 has considered the

issues of equal pay to the regular employees based on

judgment of Jagjit Singh's case and the committee observed

that the outsourced workers are not entitled for equal pay

with the regular employees on the findings of the said

committee reads as under:

"....The outsourced works who claimed equal pay for equal work for outsourced workers in power utilities in various types of works have not satisfied the conditions stated in para 42 of the Judgment of Supreme Court of India in C.A No.213/2013, dated 20.09.2016, either with regard to the quality, sensitivity and responsibilities etc., of their services..."

Thereafter, the recommendations of the committee

were sent to the State Government for appropriate decision.

However, the State Government in its minutes, it was

resolved that "the matter will be examined based on the

report submitted by the Committee in this matter." Since the

matter is being pursued at the Government level as it is

commonly applicable to outsourced workers working in

several wings of Government of A.P., resolved that the

Chairman/APPCC will take it up with the Government as it

is policy matter of Govt., of A.P.

It is further stated that, after careful examination of

the representation of the petitioners, dated 27.6.2023, this

respondent rejected the same on two grounds (i) the

representation is not in line with the orders of this Court in

W.ANo.1027 & 1028 of 2022 and (ii) though the

representation cannot be decided on merits, as the same is

not in line with the orders of this court in W.A.No.1027 &

1028 of 2022, prima facie, the same cannot be maintainable

as the functions, duties and responsibilities assigned to

petitioners are different from those that are discharged by

regular employees.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in

pursuance of the orders of this Court, the petitioners herein

have submitted their representation dated 6.1.2023 to the

respondents No.2 and 3, but the respondents willfully

rejected the claim of the petitioners which amounts to

contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, learned counsel requests

this Court to pass appropriate orders.

8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents submits that the respondent

concerned referred the committee report in the year 2017

which has examined all the issues in relation to extending

minimum time scale by duly acknowledging the facts, issues

and position of employees of APTRANSCO and also

considered the contents of the Supreme Court judgments as

well. Mere citing the previous similar instance does not

mean pre-empted. He further submits that the respondents

have rejected the representation of the petitioners on the

ground that the nature of duties and employment of the

petitioners are not one and the same from regular employees

and the petitioners are not doing similar nature of duties on

par with regular employees as stated in the order dated

27.06.2023. He further submits that, the prayers of the

petitioners are liable to be rejected not only on the point of

having no merits but also on the basic preliminary ground

that the contempt petition suffers from suppression of facts

and the malice on the part of the petitioners and the

respondent never intend to violate the orders of this Court.

Learned Government Pleader further submits that once an

order has been passed in the Writ appeal and the order

passed by the Single Judge is modified and the Writ Appeal

is allowed, the order of the Single judge merges with the

order passed in the Writ Appeal. The doctrine of merger

does not make a distinction between an order of reversal,

modification or an order of confirmation. Hence, prayed to

dismiss the petition.

9. In the case of "M. Santhi Vs. Mr. Pradeep Yadav

and Another"2 wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court held

as follows:

"20. The purpose of law of contempt is to protect the machinery of justice and the interests of the public in order to protect these dual interests, unwarranted interference with administration of justice must be prevented. The power to punish for contempt is conferred on Courts for two reasons. Firstly, that the Courts may be armed with the power to enforce their orders, Secondly, they may be able to punish obstruction to the administration of justice. To ensure these objective, there are also constitutional provisions dealing with contempt of Courts, apart from Contempt of Courts Act. Under Article 215 of the Constitution of India a Court of record is a Court, the records of which are admitted to be evidentiary value and not to be questioned when produced before any Court. Such a Court enjoys a power to punish for contempt as its inherent jurisdiction. The impression created by the Court is that even if Article 129 and 215 were not there in Constitution the contempt owers of Courts of record would have been preserved. However the High Courts have to exercise his powers keeping in mind Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act".

The Hon'ble Madras High Court has clearly specified the

purpose and object in filing the Contempt Case as cited supra.

10. The contents of the counter-affidavit would speak

the volume of the conduct of the respondents in not

implementing the orders of this Court. This Court has

granted several adjournments in this case at the request of

Contempt Petition No. 377 of 2018, dated 11.04.2018 Madras High Court

learned Government Pleader for the respondents; so far, the

respondents failed to comply with the orders of this Court by

the respondents/ contemnors. Therefore, the acts of the

respondents in not comply with the order of this court

amounts to contempt of courts. Therefore this Court opined

that respondents knowingly, willfully and deliberately

disobeying the orders of this Court.

11. I must express my inability to agree. It is

incumbent upon the respondents, more particularly, those

who are holding senior position in Government, to ensure

that the Orders of this Court are complied with promptitude,

and within the time stipulated for its compliance. Any

difficulty which they may have in complying with the order

of this Court would require them to invoke this Court

jurisdiction seeking extension of time to comply with the

orders.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case, this Court is of the view that it is fallacious to

determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An

employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less

than another who performs the same duties and

responsibilities.

13. As per the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court

under Article 141 of Constitution of India, the principle of

'equal pay for equal work' constitutes a clear and

unambiguous right and is vested in every employee-whether

engaged on regular or temporary basis. There can be no

doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would

be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, as s

to vest in them the right to claim wages on par with the

minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged Government

employees holding the same post.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is

of the view that, even though this Court passed orders to

consider the representation of the petitioners and as it was

modified by a Division Bench of this Court to consider the

same by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in a case of Jagjit Singh (supra), the respondents

willfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court in WP

No.28407 of 2022 dated 6.9.2022 as modified in WA

No.1028 of 2022 dated 22.12.2022 and thereby the

respondents are guilty of contempt and have rendered

themselves liable for punishment under Contempt of Courts

Act, 1971.

15. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and

the Contemnors/respondents No.2 and 3 are sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month

each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees ONE Thousand

only) each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) week. The

Contemnors/respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to

surrender before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of

Andhra Pradesh, on or before 27.07.2023; on such

surrender, the Registrar (Judicial), is directed to remand

them to jail for a period of one (01) month.

      As     a   sequel,   all    the    pending     miscellaneous

applications shall stand closed.

                                   ______________________________
                                    DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 21 -07-2023
Gvl





      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO




         CONTEMPT CASE No.2041 of 2023




                Date : 21 .07.2023




Gvl