Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

P Soma Sekhara Sharma vs Shashibhushan Kumar,I.A.S on 20 June, 2024

APHC010420312023
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                [3330]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)


                   THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE
                     TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                       CONTEMPT CASE No: 5422/2023

     Between:

     P Soma Sekhara Sharma and Others           ...PETITIONER(S)

                                   AND

     Shashibhushan Kumar I A S and Others      ...CONTEMNOR(S)

     Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

         1. M KESAVA RAO

     Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

         1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY

     The Court made the following:
                                    2




ORDER:

The present Contempt Case is filed to punish the respondent

authorities for willful and deliberate disobedience of the order

passed by this Court in W.P. No.25032 of 2020 dated 14.09.2022,

under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The

petitioners herein presented Writ Petition before this Court for Writ of

Mandamous to direct the respondents to consider their case for

regularization of service forthwith in the category of working

Inspector, Attender and Attender respectively.

2. As seen from the averments in the Writ Petition, the present

Writ Petition is filed for regularization of service basing upon the

orders of this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions. This Court has

allowed the Writ Petitions basing upon the admission made in the

Counter Affidavit filed in W.P. No.25032 of 2020, where the

respondent authorities asserted in the following manner "It is to be

stated that the circumstances the case filed in the relevant writ

petitions viz W.P. No.27217 of 2017, 1425 of 2019 and 19361 of

2018 upon which the Court passed Orders dated 19.09.2017,

15.10.2019 and 25.09.2019 respectively are not known to these

respondents as all the applicants in these Writ Petitions are not

pertaining to this division [Water Resources Department]. However,

in case the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the present Writ Petition

passes such orders, the respondents have no objection to approach

the Government and obtain necessary orders for conversion of the

applicants from NMR services to W.C. Service duly regularizing their

services without following the cutoff date i.e. 25.11.1993 as fixed by

the Government through Act No.2 of 1994, and to extend

consequential benefits".

3. Basing on the admission made by the respondents in the

Counter in W.P. No.25302 of 2020, the Writ Petition was disposed

of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners

for regularization of the services fixing a time of 8 weeks from the

date of receipt of the order in W.P. No.2530 of 2020.

4. For not complying the directions of this Court, the petitioners

herein filed the present Contempt Case to punish the respondents

for not regularizing the services of the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

that in the order in W.P. No.25302 a positive direction was given to

the respondents. Not implementing the order amounts to willful

disobedience of the order. Therefore, the petitioners would contend

that the respondents are liable to be punished for the willful

disobedience of the order of this Court under Section 10 to 12 of the

Contempt of Courts Act.

6. Demurer, counsel appearing for the respondents by name Sri

Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy filed reply/counter affidavit and agitated

that the petitioners herein filed O.A. No.11573 of 2009 before the

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, with a prayer to regularize

their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 (Finance and Planning)

Department dated 22.04.1994 from the date of completion of 5

years of service. And the said O.A. was dismissed by the

Administrative Tribunal with a finding that the applicants/petitioners

herein have not completed 5 years of service as on the cut of date

i.e. 27.09.1993 and unless they complete 5 years of service as on

the cutoff date they are not entitled for regularization of service and

also further contended that the orders in W.P. No.77217 of 2017

dated 19.09.2017 W.P. No.1425 of 2019 dated 15.10.2019 and WP

19361 of 2018 dated 29.08.2019 are disposed of directed to

consider for regularization against existing vacancies subject to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary v. State of

Karnataka and others v. Umadevi1 And also relied on the judgments

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. The State of

Madhya Pradesh & others2 for the proposition that two conditions for

regularizations of daily wage employees shall be fulfilled, firstly,

initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and

2006 (4) SCC 1

2023 LiveLaw(SC) 91

secondly, there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated

employee must be working. No claim for regularization if these

conditions are not met. And also relied on the order of this Court in

W.P. No.8894 of 2012, wherein the Division Bench in order dated

14.02.2024 for the very same proposition which was laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court referred supra. As per the two judgments

any employee can be regularized only on fulfillment of two

conditions that there must be appointed by the competent authority

and there must be a sanctioned post. And it is contended that the

petitioners have not been appointed in any sanctioned post.

Therefore, the services of the petitioners cannot be regularized.

7. And the present petitioners in the contempt case were initially

appointed as NMR (Work Inspector)/ NMR (Man Mazdoor) / NMR

(Man Mazdoor) purely on temporary basis and on daily wages and

their appointments were not made against sanctioned vacant posts

and also not as per the standard recruitment procedure. And they

are not having 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 in

duly sanctioned vacant posts with requisite qualifications. As they

are not appointed against duly sanctioned vacant posts, which is

one of the requisite condition for regularization as laid down in para

53 of the Umadevi case referred supra, is not in accordance with the

law. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be regularized and are not

entitled to get any consequential benefits. Therefore, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents pleaded to dismiss the

contempt case.

8. Heard Sri M. Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners

and Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy for the respondents.

9. As per the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the

respondents, undoubtedly the petitioners are not entitled for

regularization of their services as they have not worked for 5/10

years as contemplated under the Act No.2 of 1994 and subsequent

G.O.s which are promulgated by the State of Andhra Pradesh.

However, the respondents have admitted in the counter affidavit

filed in the Writ Petition No.25032 of 2020. Relying on the admission

i.e. which speaks that the respondent authorities are inclined to

oblige any orders passed by this Court. Therefore, basing upon the

said admission made by the respondents, the Writ Petition is

disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the case

of the petitioners for regularization. The respondents ought not to

have been admitted in the counter affidavit that respondent is ready

to oblige any orders passed by the Court while doing so one should

necessarily have to oblige any order passed by this Court. The

thread decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (1) Madan Mohan

Pathak and another v. Union of India3 (2) A.V. Nachane and another

v. Union of India and another4 (3) P.S. Mahal and others v. Union of

India and others5 and in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

LIC v. D.J. Bahadur6 held that even the decision rendered by the

Court amounts to erroneous, the remedy by way of appeal or

review, but so long as the judgment stands, it cannot be disregarded

or ignored and it must be obeyed by the respondents. And the

same principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prithawi

Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and others7 wherein it was held that

while dealing with the contempt, the Court is really concerned with

the compliance of the order passed by it or not. It would not be

permissible for a court to re-examining the correctness of the earlier

decision, which had not been assailed and to take a view different

than what was taken in the earlier order. In such an event, the

aggrieved party can always approach the Court for implementation

of the earlier orders by approaching the Court which passed the

order for invoking the appellate jurisdiction.

10. When, once an order is passed, it is the duty of the authorities

to implement the same without giving any interpretation and if the

1978 (2) SCC 50)

1984 (4) SCC 545

AIR 1984 SC 1291

(1981) 1 SCC 315

(2004) 7 SCC 261

order is contrary to law, they are at liberty to file appropriate appeal

before the appellate authority or application before the Single Judge

to review the order. But, without preferring an appeal, the

respondent/contemnor cannot interpret the order and give different

meaning to the order passed by the Court, which is sought to be

implemented, as directed by the Court and such act of the

respondent/contemnor is illegal in view of the law declared by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v.

C Muddaiah8.

11. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its

opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither

practical nor feasible can always either approach to the Court that

passed the order for review or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate

Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in the

contempt proceedings. The respondents ought to have been took

an advice to mean that they are not required to follow a single judge

decision on the basis of legal advice or court's decision is effected

by jurisdictional error and the order do not have legal effect. As a

matter of fact, the decision is incorrect at least the circumstances

prompt action is taken to clarify the position (presumably by way of

appeal or review of the single judge decision). And the order of the

2007 (7) SCC 689

Writ Courts cannot be nullify by interpreting the order sitting as an

appellate authority over the decision of the High Court delivered

under Articles 226 / 227 of Constitution of India.

12. The admission made by the respondents made this Court to

pass the order in W.P No.25032 of 2020. Accordingly arguments

beyond the admission in the counter are not permissible and are

rejected accordingly.

13. Therefore, this Court founds that the 1st respondent has

violated the orders of this Court in W.P. No.25032 of 2020 dated

14.09.2022 and this Court found guilty of the 1st respondent. In the

result the contempt case is allowed sentencing the respondent No.1

to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six weeks and to pay a

fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only). In the event of failure

to pay the fine of Rs.2,000/-, the 1st respondent shall further undergo

2 weeks of imprisonment that won't run concurrently. The 1st

respondent is hereby directed to surrender before the Registrar

(Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on or before 05.07.2024,

on such surrender, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send the 1st

respondent/contemnor to civil prison in accordance with the order.

The contempt case is closed against the respondents No.2 to 5.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this

contempt case shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 20.06.2024 Harin

Note:

The Registry has sent the contempt case bundle for clarification regarding surrender of 1st respondent/contemnor before the Registrar (Judicial), as it is noted 05.07.2027. The mistake was done and it is rectified as 05.07.2024 instead of 05.07.2027. The order copy was re-uploaded in the web. The contemnor shall surrender on or before 05.07.2024.