Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B.Hari Prasad, vs Mr.A.Sai Baba, on 20 October, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CONTEMPT CASE Nos.1359 and 1437 OF 2015
1. Both these contempt cases are filed alleging willful
disobedience in implementing the order dated 06.04.2015
passed in W.P.No.9352 of 2015 and order dated 09.03.2015
passed in W.P.No.5716 of 2015. Since the interim order
passed by this Court in both the writ petitions and the
respondents are almost one and the same, I am of the view
that it is appropriate to decide both these petitions by
common order taking C.C.No.1359 of 2015 as leading
petition.
2. The Contempt Case No.1359 of 2015 has been filed
complaining willful disobedience in implementing the Order
dated 06.04.2015 passed by thisCourt in W.P.No.9352 of
2015.
3. The background for initiating this contempt case is as
under:
4. The petitioner filed W.P.No.9352 of 2015 to declare the
action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 therein in forcibly objecting
the petitioner to discharge/perform his duties as per the
original appointment made on 08.12.1984, and converted his
VS,J
C.C.Nos.1359 and 1437 of 2015
service from regular service into contractual service vide
letter dated 30.11.2013 under the guise of resolution passed
by the Executive Committee and Board of Management that
only those employees who opted to come under contract
system will be eligible for extension of age from 58 to 60
years, thereby affecting the petitioner continuation of service
in which post he was originally appointed without any notice
as unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and illegal.
5. On 06.04.2015, while issuing notice before admission,
this Court has passed the following order.
".... However, the petitioner shall be continued subject
to the same terms and conditions existing as of now till
he attains the age of superannuation and retires
eventually."
6. The petitioner contended that pursuant to the above
said interim direction dated 06.04.2015, he approached the
respondents on 07.04.2015 along with the copy of order in
W.P.No.9352 of 2015 and handed over the copy of order to
the concerned officer. But, in spite of the same, without
permitting the petitioner to continue in service, respondent
No.1 has issued notice dated 22.04.2015 informing that the
VS,J
C.C.Nos.1359 and 1437 of 2015
petitioner would not be allowed to attend the office as there
is no order in his favour. After lapse of sufficient time also,
the respondents intentionally did not choose to implement
the order passed by this Court, thereby willfully violated the
direction given by this Court.
7. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavitcontending that
the question of superannuation of the petitioner does not
arise, as his contract of service had expired by 14.05.2014.
According to the Model Form issued by the Government of
India, the petitioner has been taken into contractual service
from year to year, as the grant-in-aid has been sanctioning
from year to year. It is further contended in the counter
affidavitthat on one hand, petitioner has approached the
Civil Court and on the other hand, approached this Court
leaving the original jurisdiction of Cooperative Societies
Tribunal at Visakhapatnam, as such he is prosecuting
parallel proceedings which may result in conflict of
judgments by different Courts, which is impermissible under
law and requested to dismiss the contempt case.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel appearing for the respondents/contemnors.
VS,J
C.C.Nos.1359 and 1437 of 2015
9. On perusal of the material available on record, it
appears that,on 28.08.2015, Notice in Form-I was issued to
the respondents in C.C.No.1359 of 2015. On 01.10.2015 the
respondents appeared before this Court. However, their
presence is dispensed with.
10. On 13.11.2015, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the petitioners in both the contempt cases
have already been allowed to the office and they are
attending the office.
11. The statement made by the learned counsel for the
respondents on 13.11.2015 that the petitioners in both cases
have already been allowed to the office and they are
attending to the office, is not denied by the learned counsel
for the petitioners. However, these contempt cases have been
listed along with the main writ petitions.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the statement made before this Court by the learned
counsel for the respondents on 13.11.2015, and the fact that
the petitioners did not deny the said statement, it appears
that the petitioners were allowed to attend their office.
VS,J
C.C.Nos.1359 and 1437 of 2015
13. In view of the same, no contempt lies against the
respondents.
14. Accordingly, both the contempt cases are closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
15. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if
any, shall also stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date:20.10.2023
Ksp
