Telangana High Court
D. Uppalaiah And 13 Oothers vs Smt.Shanta Kumari, Ias And 3 Others on 30 July, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
CONTEMPT CASE No.808 OF 2023
in
W.P. No.39928 OF 2017
Between:
D.Uppalaiah and Others
... Petitioner
And
Smt.Shanta Kumari, IAS and Others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:30.07.2024
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
2 SN,J
cc_808_2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
CONTEMPT CASE No.808 OF 2023
in
W.P. No.39928 OF 2017
% 30 .07.2024
Between:
# D.Uppalaiah and Others ... Petitioner
And
$ Smt.Shanta Kumari IAS and Others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu
^Counsel for the Respondents : Government Pleader for Services-II
? Cases Referred:
1. 2017 vol.5 SCC 506
2. W.P.No.27602 of 2019, dated 06.12.2022
3. W.A.No.563 of 2023, dated 04.09.2023
3 SN,J
cc_808_2023
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
CONTEMPT CASE No.808 OF 2023
in
W.P. No.39928 OF 2017
ORDER:
Heard Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and learned
Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of
respondents.
2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as
under:
"...to punish the respondents herein for the respondents
willful violation and deliberate disobedience of the orders,
dated 09.12.2022 in W.P.No.39928 of 2017 by here Lordships
Hon'ble Justice Smt.Surepalli Nanda and pass such other
order or orders..."
3. PERUSED THE RECORD :
A. The operative portion of the order dated 09.12.2022
passed in W.P.No.39928 of 2017 reads as under:-
4 SN,J
cc_808_2023
26. The respondents herein cannot deny the relief of
regularization to the petitioners as per para 53 of the decision
in Umadevi's case, which permits one time exercise of
regularization to be done for personal employed on temporary
basis/daily wages etc, who have rendered continuous service
for more than 10 years. The respondents herein cannot take
the services of the petitioners for years together without
regularising their services and indulge in such a practice
inconsistent with their obligation to function in accordance
with the constitution as observed by the Apex Court in Nihal
Singh and others v State of Punjab which clearly held that
"sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven" and the State has
to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some
rational assessment of the need.
27. Taking into consideration the above referred
factsand circumstances and in view of the observations
of the Apex Court in various judgments referred to and
discussed above, the writ petition is allowed duly
setting aside the order impugned in Procgs
No.37/CPR&RE/C2/2015, dated 27.10.2016 and the
respondents while continuously engaging the services
of the petitioners herein are henceforth directed to
consider the case of the petitioners for regularization
of their services in accordance to law, in the posts
whose work they are discharging now in the light of
the various judgments of the Apex Court referred to
5 SN,J
cc_808_2023
and discussed above and pass appropriate orders,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of copy of this order duly communicating the decision
to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as
to costs.
B. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3,
and in particular, para No.11, reads as under:
11) Therefore, as per the settled preposition of law, the
regularization can be made only as per the regularization
policy declared by the State /Government and nobody can
claim the regularization as a matter of right dehors the
regularization policy. Therefore, in absence of any
sanctioned post and considering the fact that the
respondents were engaged on piece meal basis only
they were not entitled for the benefit of regularization
and accordingly speaking orders have been issued.
In view of the above, it is very humbly submitted that
this answering respondent is a responsible Government
Employees having highest respect for the orders passed by
any Court including the Hon'ble High Court and never violated
any orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court.
I humbly submit that, if , this Hon'ble Court still feels
that orders of the Hon'ble Court were violated by these
6 SN,J
cc_808_2023
respondents 1 to 4, I tender an unconditional apology for the
same.
Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to dismiss the above contempt case against the
respondent's and pass such other order or orders as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and render justice.
C. Paragraph No.8 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of
the petitioners in C.C.No.808 of 2023 in W.P.No.39928 of
2017, read as under:
8. I submit that the spirit of the order o this Hon'ble Court
dated 09.12.2022 in W.P.No.39928 of 2017 and allowed the
Writ Petition by setting aside the earlier rejection of
regularization of the petitioner proceedings dated 27.04.2016
and directed the respondents that the petitioners are entitled
for regularization of their service in purview of the Nihal Singh
and M.L.Kesari Judgments of an Apex Court and the same
was to be honored by the contemnors by regularizing the
services of the petitioners but the contemnors hair splitting
the spirit of the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 09.12.2022
and non-complied deliberately in disobedience of this Hon'ble
Court and issuing an impugned proceedings is amounts to
contempt of the Court i.e., this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
7 SN,J
cc_808_2023
to punish the Contemnors for non-compliance of orders of
this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.
D. The relevant portion of the speaking orders vide
proceedings No.338/CPR&RE/C1/Mdl(ZPP)/2018, dated
03.02.2023 passed in compliance to the orders of this Court
dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No. 39928 of 2017, reads as
under:
"Sri D.Uppalaiah, S/o Sailu Occ: Bore well Mechanic Mahabubabad
Mandal, Mahabubabad District & 14 others have filed Writ Petition
No.39928 of 2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana State
seeking orders for suspending the Proceedings of the
Commissioner, PR&RE vide Proc. No. 37/CPR&RE/C2/2015, Dated:
27.10.2016 issued to all the District Panchayath Officers and Chief
Executive Officers for payment of wages to Bore Well Mechanics
from 14th Finance G.P fund, under the Supervision of MPDO,
whenever the bore well repairs are being taken up by these Pump
Mechanics in Gram Panchayats jurisdiction and with a prayer to
regularize their services.
In the said W.P.No.39928 of 2017, the Hon'ble High Court
has made the following order on Dt 09.12.2022:-
"Taking into consideration the above referred facts and
circumstances and in view of the observations of the
Apex Court in various judgments referred to and
8 SN,J
cc_808_2023
discussed above, the writ petition is allowed duly
setting aside the order impugned in
Procgs.No.37/CPR&RE/C2/2015, Dt.27.10.2016 and
the respondents while continuously engaging the
services of the petitioners herein are henceforth
directed to consider the case of the petitioners for
regularization of their services in accordance to law, in
the posts whose work they are discharging now in the
light of the various judgments of the Apex Court
referred to and discussed above and pass appropriate
orders, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order duly communicating the
decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed".
In Compliance with, the Hon'ble High Court orders, the
request of the petitioners is examined in greater detail with
reference to the scheme of regularization in accordance with the
Telangana State Policy on the subject of regularization, in
accordance with the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance &
Planning (FW.PC.III) Department Dated: 22-04-1994 and
G.O.Ms.112 Finance & Planning (PW.PC.III) Department dated: 23-
07-1997 and its subsequent amendments.
9 SN,J
cc_808_2023
We have also considered the case of petitioners as per the
law laid down by the Apex Courts orders i.e., the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in District Collector/ Chairman Vs. M.L.Singh and others,
A.Manjula Bashini Vs. AP Women's Coop Finance Corporation
Limited and Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi
(3) and others.
After examination of the above apex court orders, in
accordance with the Telangana State policy on the subject of
regularization scheme, it is observed that, the petitioner
plea has not covered under the eligibility of regularization
criteria and the petitioner was not appointed against any
sanctioned post and also that the petitioner's services were
engaged on need basis only.
Therefore, the petitioner at Sl.No.1 in W.P.No. 39928 of 2017
Sri D.Uppalaiah, S/o Sailu, Occ: Bore well Mechanic, Mahabubabad
Mandal, Mahabubabad District whose services are engaged for bore
well repair on need basis is hereby informed that, his request for
regularization of his services is examined and rejected.
The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad,
Mahabubabad is requested to serve these orders to the individual
under acknowledgement."
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
mainly submits that it is deliberate violation of the orders of
this Court, dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.39928 of
10 SN,J
cc_808_2023
2017 only to deprive the petitioners of their lawful
entitlement of regularization of their services in total
disrespect and disregard to the law laid down by the Apex
Court in various judgments referred to in the order dated
09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.39928 of 2017 which is in
clear violation of the orders of this Court, dated 09.12.2022
passed in W.P.No.39928 of 2017.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners in support of his submissions places reliance
upon the principle laid down in the order dated 09.11.2022
passed under identical circumstances in W.P.No. 173 of 2022
seeking prayer as under:-
" ......to issue and order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of the Writ of Mandamus to declare the rejection
order dated 03/09/2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 not
regularising the services of the Petitioners herein on par with
the similar class IV employees vide R.O No 6/2/DW/92/03
dated 30/08/2003 orders vide G.O. Ms. No. 212 dated
22/04/1994 Finance and Planning FW PC III Department
Government of Andhra Pradesh as illegal arbitrary and
unconstitutional violation of Article 14 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India besides the Law declared by the
11 SN,J
cc_808_2023
Supreme Court of India in Secretary State of Karnataka and
others v Umadevii Case mandating periodic regular
recruitment to sanctioned posts and prays to direct the
Respondents herein to regularise the Petitioners herein
forthwith on par with the already regularised similar daily
wage employees vide G. O. Ms. No. 212 with all consequential
monetary benefits including Minimum Time Scale of Pay by
implementing the consent order passed in W. P. No. 19225 of
2020 in the interest of justice and pass....."
6. It is observed in the said order dated 09.11.2022 passed
in W.P.No. 173 of 2022 as under:-
9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on
record, this Court finds that admittedly, the petitioners have
been working with the respondent organization for nearly 30
years. On the earlier occasions, when the petitioners have
approached this Court, this Court was pleased to direct the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for
regularization of their services in terms of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (cited supra).
In the case of Uma Devi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has directed the Union Government, State
Governments and their instrumentalities to take steps
to regularize, as a onetime measure, the services of
such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten
years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under
the cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and to
12 SN,J
cc_808_2023
further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that
are required to be filled up in cases where temporary
employees or daily wagers are now being employed
and that the process must be set in motion within six
months from the date of the order.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the
regularization of temporary, contractual, casual, daily
wager or adhoc employees appointed/recruited to
constitute a scheme of public employment on issuance
of directions of Court so far. Therefore, the said
judgment would be applicable even to the contractual
employees, if they worked for more than the required
period.
13. In view of the same, the impugned order rejecting
the requests of the petitioners is clearly not
sustainable. The respondents are therefore, directed to
reconsider the case of the petitioners for regularization
and pass orders of regularization of their services with
effect from the date of their eligibility with all
consequential benefits.
7. The judgment in W.P.No. 173 of 2022, dated 09.11.2022,
had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide its
13 SN,J
cc_808_2023
judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed in W.A.No.563 of 2023
whereunder at para No.6, it is observed as under:-
6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made
by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that the
learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the subject Writ
Petition in favour of the unofficial respondents, as admittedly,
the appellants have not considered the case of the unofficial
respondents in terms of the law laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra 1), except referring
to the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and
extracting certain paragraphs of the said judgments. The
appellants have mechanically rejected the cases of the
unofficial respondents with an observation that in view of the
settled law, the cases of the unofficial respondents cannot be
considered for regularisation of their services. Except making
the above observation, merits of the case were not discussed
by the appellants. Since it is an admitted fact that the
unofficial respondents were working with the
appellants for more than three decades, the services of
the unofficial respondents deserve to be regularised in
terms of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme
Court in Umadevi's case (supra 1). Therefore, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order, dated 09.11.2022. The Writ Appeal fails and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
14 SN,J
cc_808_2023
8. It is also pertinent to note that the view of the Division
Bench of this Court in its order dated 04.09.2023 passed in
W.A.No.563 of 2023 was confirmed by the Apex Court vide
its judgment dated 10.11.2023 in SLP No.24844 of 2023
which had been preferred by the Nizam Institute of Medical
And Sciences, aggrieved against the order dated 04.09.2023
passed in W.A.No. 563 of 2023 by the High Court of
Telangana at Hyderabad.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners also places on record the proceedings
No. Rc.No.HR6/235/2011/NSCK, dated 01.07.2024 issued
by the Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad in
W.P No.173 of 2022 in compliance to the orders passed
earlier by this Court which had been confirmed in
W.A.No.563 of 2023 vide its judgment dated 04.09.2023 and
also the Apex Court vide its order dated 10.11.2023 in
similar circumstances and submits that subsequently the
petitioners thereunder had been regularized. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in
the present contempt case are entitled for similar relief and
15 SN,J
cc_808_2023
the respondents cannot deny the same to the petitioners on
frivolous grounds and the same amounts to deliberate
violation of the orders of this Court, dated 09.12.2022
passed in W.P.No 39928 of 2017.
10. It is pertinent to bring on record that this Court under
similar circumstances allowed W.P.No. 27602 of 2019 which
had been filed seeking prayer as under:-
"........to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned notice in
Rc.No.C1/1933/2009, dated 06.08.2019 issued by the 2nd
respondent wherein rejecting the claim of the petitioners for
regularisation of their services though the same was considered
in cases of similarly situated persons as illegal, and liable to be
set aside and consequently, direct the respondents to regularise
the services of the petitioners by duly following law laid down by
the Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and
others v Umadevi and others on 10.04.2006 and the law
laid down by the High Court in U.V.S.R. Prasad and others
v State of Andhra Pradesh and another in W.P.No.27217
of 2017 reported in 2018(2) ALD 282 (DB) with all
consequential benefits."
11. The relevant portion of the order dated 06.12.2022
passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019, reads as under:-
16 SN,J
cc_808_2023
17. Taking into consideration, the above referred facts
and circumstances and in the light of the observations
of the Apex Court in various judgments referred to and
discussed above, the writ petition is allowed duly
setting aside the order impugned in
Rc.No.C1/1993/2009, dated 06.08.2019 issued by the
2nd respondent and the respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioners for regularization
of the services of the petitioners duly taking into
consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in
various judgments referred to and extracted above,
since the petitioners herein are also entitled for similar
treatment as was extended by the respondents herein
in favour of 35 NMRs of the 3rd respondent temple
whose services had been regularized and in whose
favour G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 12.05.2017 was issued by
the respondents herein and pass appropriate orders, in
accordance to law, within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of copy of the order and
communicate the decision to the petitioners. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
12. The said order 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No. 27602 of
2019 was confirmed by Division Bench of this Court, dated
10.10.2023 in W.A.No.937/2023, the relevant portion of the
said order is as under:-
17 SN,J
cc_808_2023
8. Learned counsel for appellant's contention is that
the Courts cannot not give a direction to regularise the
service of the respondents as this issue was already
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's
case (2 supra). In fact in para 53 of the said judgment,
it has directed the employers to frame a scheme as one
time measure for regularisation of their service that
too in respect of such of those employees who have
rendered more than 30 years of service with the
appellant. Therefore, such contention of the appellant
cannot be accepted and the same is rejected.
13. PERUSED THE RECORD:
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
mainly submits that the proceedings No.
338/CPR&RE/C1/Mdl(ZPP)/2018, dated 03.02.2023, issued
in compliance to the orders of this Court dated 09.12.2022
passed in W.P.No.39928 of 2017 is not in true spirit of the
orders of this Court, dated 09.12.2022 passed in
W.P.No.39928 of 2017 and the observations of the Apex
Court in the various judgments referred to and extracted in
18 SN,J
cc_808_2023
the said order had been totally ignored by the respondents.
The respondents mechanically considered the case of the
petitioners' and rejected it erroneously simply stating that
the petitioners are not covered under the eligibility of
regularization criteria since the petitioners were not
appointed against any sanctioned post and that petitioners'
services were engaged on need basis only.
14. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand
submits that the order of this Court dated 09.12.2022
passed in W.P.No.39928 of 2017 had been complied with in
true spirit and proceedings dated 03.02.2023 had been
issued to the petitioners and hence, contempt needs to be
closed
15. This Court opines that the pleas put-forth in the
proceedings, dated 03.02.2023 in rejecting petitioners' case
that the petitioners had been engaged on need basis only
and further, the petitioners were not appointed against
sanctioned post was in fact considered by this Court at the
stage of admission itself.
19 SN,J
cc_808_2023
16. A bare perusal of the order dated 17.12.2018 passed
in I.A.No.01 of 2018 in W.P.No. 39928 of 2017, which had
been in fact extracted by this Court earlier at paragraph
No.16, in its order dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.
39928 of 2017 reads as under:-
"Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned
Government Pleader Administration appearing for learned for
General 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader for
Services-II appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 8 and Sri
G.Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent
Nos.9 to 23.
Having regard to the documents filed along with the Writ
Petition by the petitioners, it is clear that petitioners have
been engaged in the Panchayat Raj Department though for
some period, their services were utilized by the Rural Water
Supply Department as well and they are being paid as on
date from the grants received by the respective Gram
Panchayats as per XIV Finance Commission as per
proceedingsNo.A2/4855/2016 (Pts) dt.09-01-2016.
Though in the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent, it is
stated that petitioners are being paid on piece rate basis,
having regard to the certificates filed by petitioners, which
shows that petitioners had been engaged on monthly
20 SN,J
cc_808_2023
remuneration and the statement by learned Standing Counsel
for respondent Nos.9 to 23 that their remuneration prior to
the filing of the Writ Petition was around Rs. 15,000/-, the
plea that they were being paid on piece rate basis cannot be
accepted.
Respondents 1, 2, 4 to 8 have not filed any counter affidavit.
Though learned Government Pleader for Services-II contends
that the principle of equal pay for equal work in State of
Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others will not apply
since the petitioners are not rendering similar duties and
responsibilities as are being discharged by regular employees
holding same/corresponding posts in the Panchayat Raj
Department, this contention is prima facie without any
merit since petitioners have been admittedly engaged
for more than 10 years in post of Pump Mechanic on
monthly remuneration basis, which admittedly
according to the learned Standing Counsel for
respondent Nos.9 to 23 is around Rs.15,000/- p.m.
In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that
petitioners are entitled to be paid by respondents
wages on par with minimum of pay scale of regularly
engaged Government employees holding such post of
Pump Mechanic as per the above decision."
21 SN,J
cc_808_2023
17. The observations of this Court in particular at
paragraph Nos.18 and 20 to 27 of the order, dated
09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.39928 of 2017 and the
directions issued thereunder are plainly self evident facts
which can be taken into account for the purpose of
consideration as to whether there has been any
disobedience or willful violation of the same. This Court on
perusal of the same is of the firm opinion that there has
been willful and deliberate violation of the orders of this
Court, dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.39928 of 2017.
18. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2017 vol.5
SCC 506 in Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. Mazdoor Sangh
(BMS) and Others Vs. Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. And
Others, at para No.23 observed as under:-
"23. As held by this Court in DDA v. Skipper
Construction co.(p.) Ltd., and going a step further, the
Court has duty to issue appropriate directions for
remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of
the orders. In that regard the Court may even take
restitutive measures at any stage of the proceedings."
22 SN,J
cc_808_2023
19. The respondents have issued the proceedings, dated
03.02.2023 in compliance to the orders of this Court, dated
09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.39928 of 2017, mechanically
without application of mind, totally ignoring the law laid
down by the Apex Court on the subject issue and rejected
petitioners' request for regularization on two specific pleas,
that the petitioners had not been appointed against any
sanctioned post and the petitioners' services were engaged
on need basis only, which had already been considered by
this Court in its orders dated 09.12.2022 passed in
W.P.No.39928 of 2017 and at the admission stage itself as
observed in the interim orders, dated 17.12.2018 passed in
I.A.No.01 of 2018 in W.P.No.39928 of 2017 and totally,
ignoring the observations of the Apex Court in the various
judgments referred to and extracted in the order dated
09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.39928 of 2017 and without
application of mind to the observations from para Nos. 18 to
27 of the order dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.39928 of
2017, the proceedings dated 03.02.2023 had been issued
which amounts to deliberate violation of the orders of this
23 SN,J
cc_808_2023
Court and flouting the orders of this Court 09.12.2022
passed in W.P.No.39928 of 2017.
20. Taking into consideration:-
a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact as
borne on record that the respondents have not preferred a
review or a Writ Appeal as on date against the orders dated
09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.39928 of 2017.
b) Duly considering the observations of the Apex Court at
para No.23 in judgment reported in 2017 vol.5 SCC 506 in
Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) and
Others Vs. Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. And Others,
(referred to and extracted above)
c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various
judgments referred to and extracted in the order dated
09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.39928 of 2017.
d) The observations of this Court from para Nos.18 & 20 to
27 of the order dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.39928 of
2017 and also in the present order.
24 SN,J
cc_808_2023
e) The order dated 09.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.173 of
2022 under identical circumstances which had been upheld
vide judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed in W.A.No.563 of
2023.
f) The order dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 of
2019 which had been confirmed by Division Bench of this
Court vide its judgment dated 10.10.2023 passed in
W.A.No.937 of 2023.
g) The proceedings No.Rc.No.HR6/235/2011/NSCK, dated
01.07.2024 issued by Nizam Insitute of Medical Sciences,
Hyderabad in compliance to the orders dated 09.11.2022
passed in W.P.No.173 of 2022 and in compliance of the
judgment dated 04.09.2023 in W.A.No.563 of 2023
confirming the orders dated 09.11.2022 passed in
W.P.No.173 of 2022 regularizing the services of the '27' writ
petitioners thereunder in W.P.No.173 of 2022, in identical
circumstances.
25 SN,J
cc_808_2023
h) The orders of the Apex Court in SLP No.24844 of 2023
dated 10.11.2023 confirming the orders in W.A.No.563 of
The respondents are directed to forthwith
re-consider the proceedings Nos.
338/CPR&RE/C1/Mdl(ZPP)/2018, dated 03.02.2023 issued
in compliance to the orders of this Court, dated 09.12.2022
passed in W.P.No. 39928 of 2017 and rectify and remedy the
said orders and pass appropriate reasoned speaking orders
implementing the orders of this Court dated 09.12.2022
passed in W.P.No.39928 of 2017 in true spirit within a
period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order and duly communicate the decision to the
petitioners. Though, this Court is convinced that the
respondents have deliberately violated the orders of this
Court, dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.39928 of 2017
and the respondents are liable to be punished for contempt
of Court under the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 yet in view
of the fact that this Court believes in pardon , this Court
intends to provide another opportunity to the respondents to
26 SN,J
cc_808_2023
rectify and remedy the mistake done in considering the
orders of this Court, dated 09.12.2022 passed in
W.P.No.39928 of 2017 in true spirit.
21. With these observations, the present Contempt Case is
disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date:30.07.2024
Note:L.R.copy to be marked
b/o
ktm
