Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B Yerraji vs Shri Shyamala Rao on 23 August, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010517802023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Review I.A.No.1 of 2021
In
WRIT PETITION No.44392/2018
And
C.C.No.401 of 2020
Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 in WRIT PETITION No.44392/2018
Between:
B.yerraji and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY(SC FOR GVMC)
2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 401/2020
Between:
B Yerraji and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Shri Shyamala Rao and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR GVMC)
2. VADAPALLI RAMESH
3. C SUMON
The Court made the following Common Order: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The Writ Petitioners who are working on minimum time scale as
Badli workers in the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation had filed
2
O.A.No.5971 of 2012 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal for release of
periodical increments on revised pay scales of 2010. This O.A was allowed by
the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 20.07.2012 directing the
respondents, in terms of earlier orders passed by the A.P. Administrative
Tribunal in O.A.No.7915 of 2002 & O.A.No.7335 of 2010 to the respondents to
release the periodical increments salary payable to the petitioners.
2. The petitioners had thereafter moved the present Writ Petition in
W.P.No.44392 of 2018 for implementation of the order dated 20.07.2012 of
the A.P. Administrative Tribunal.
3. This Court by an order 16.09.2019 in W.P.No.44392 of 2018 had
directed the respondents to implement the orders of the A.P. Administrative
Tribunal.
4. Thereafter, the Writ Petitioners have moved the present
Contempt Case No.401 of 2020 before this Court on the ground that the
directions of this Court dated 16.09.2019 in W.P.No.44392 of 2018 have not
been complied.
5. At that stage, the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation
has moved the present Review Application.
6. Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
the review petitioner submits that the order has been passed that though his
name has been included in the order, the said order had been passed without
an opportunity being given to the Municipal Corporation to place necessary
3
facts before the Court. He would further submit that these facts would have
been sufficient for non-suit the Writ Petitioner before the High Court and as
such, there is need to review the order passed by this Court on 16.09.2019 in
W.P.No.44392 of 2018.
7. Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
the review petitioner would contend that the Municipal Corporation had
sufficient grounds to place before the Court including the ground that there
has been suppression of fact and that there has been inordinate delay in
seeking implementation of the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. He
contends that the petitioners, after obtaining the orders of the A.P.
Administrative Tribunal dated 20.07.2012, had moved a Contempt Application
bearing No.1986 of 2013 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal itself. This
application was dismissed on 10.09.2015 on the ground that the said
Contempt Application had been moved beyond limitation. Thereafter, the Writ
Petitioners again filed M.A.No.1835 of 2016 in EASr.No.9013 of 2016 in
O.A.No.5971 of 2012 seeking condonation of delay of four years, 4 months,
10 days in filing the Execution Application before the A.P. Administrative
Tribunal. This application was allowed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by
an order dated 11.01.2017, condoning the delay on condition of the applicants
therein (the Writ Petitioners herein) paying cost of Rs.1000 each to the Andhra
Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad within a period of eight(8)
weeks from the date of receipt of the order. There was also a default clause
that the EASR.No.9013 of 2016 would stand rejected if there is default in
making such payment. The Writ Petitioners having failed to comply with the
4
said condition, moved the erstwhile Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh
by way of W.P.No.32682 of 2017. However, this Writ Petition was withdrawn
on 22.09.2017 and a Division Bench of the erstwhile Common High Court of
Andhra Pradesh had dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn.
8. Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
the review petitioner would also contend that the present Writ Petition filed, in
the year 2018, for implementation of an order of the year 2012 is hopelessly
hit by laches and such petitions would not be maintainable. He would rely
upon the various Judgments of the erstwhile Common High Court of Andhra
Pradesh and the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. We are
not going into these Judgments as we are not considering the merits of these
contentions.
9. Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
Writ Petitioners would submit that there has been continuous follow up by the
Writ Petitioners and as such, there is no delay which required to be answered.
He further would submit that the non-mention of the earlier proceedings before
the Tribunal as well as the High Court, was un-intentional and in the event of
non-mention of these facts would not in any manner effect the outcome of the
Writ Petition nor would the Municipal Corporation suffer any loss on account of
non-mention of these facts.
10. It is admitted on both sides the Writ Petition had been allowed at
the stage of admission and the Municipal Corporation did not have time to
present its side of the case by filing a counter or otherwise. In such
5
circumstances, this Court, without going into the relative merits or demerits of
the respective contentions of the counsel can only observe that these are
issues which require to be gone into before an order could have been passed
by this Court.
11. In the circumstances, it must be held that a ground for Review
has been made out and accordingly, the Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 is allowed
and the order dated 16.09.2019 in W.P.No.44392 of 2018 is set aside and the
Writ Petition is restore to file for hearing.
12. As far as the Contempt Case No.401 of 2020 is concerned, the
said Contempt Case has been filed for non-implementing of the order dated
16.09.2018. In view of the fact that the said order, dated 16.09.2018, in
W.P.No.44392 of 2018, had been set aside, the Contempt Case would not
further survive and accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed leaving it
open to the petitioners in the said Contempt Case to take appropriate steps in
the event of the Writ Petition being decided in their favour.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
________________
HARINATH.N, J.
BSM
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
In
And
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Date: 23.08.2024
BSM
