Telangana High Court
A.Mallesh vs Alugu Versini, Ias, on 17 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
CONTEMPT CASE No.1638 OF 2024
ORDER:
Alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of
this Court dated 31.08.2023 in W.P.No.24221 of 2023, this
Contempt Case is filed. Subsequently, vide I.A.No.1 of 2025,
respondent No.2 is also impleaded in the writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as an
Attender on contract basis vide proceedings dated 21.04.2006 and
though several other contract employees were regularized, his case
was not considered for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.16,
dated 26.02.2016. Therefore, he has filed a writ petition vide
W.P.No.24221 of 2023 and this Court vide orders dated 31.08.2023
had directed respondent No.2 to take a decision on the request of
the petitioner to regularize his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.16
and within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of
copy of the order. In spite of lapse of more than a year, the order of
this Court was not complied with. Hence, the Contempt Case has
been filed.
4. Respondent No.2 in the writ petition, who is Contemnor No.1
in this Contempt Case, has filed a counter affidavit stating that the
petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.23371 of 2019 before
this Court seeking relief of regularization of service for the post
of Attender in the quota of land donation to an extent of Ac.2.07 gts
for construction of Bridge School, which is taken over by
respondent No.2 - Society and that the writ petition was disposed
of vide order dated 28.10.2019 directing respondent No.1- Principal
Secretary to Government to consider the recommendations made
by respondent No.2 on 12.10.2013 and to pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order and further, vide letters dated
25.02.2020 and 22.01.2023 also, the proposals of the petitioner
were sent to Government with a request to issue appropriate orders
as it is a policy decision and the Government is the competent
authority to take a decision, as there was no provision in Service
Rules of TGSWREIS for providing regular employment to the land
donators. It is stated that vide letter dated 25.07.2023, the
Government vide Govt. Letter dated 16.01.2014 had informed that
it has already examined the request of the petitioner and informed
that providing regular employment to the individual is not feasible
for acceptance and that he can be provided with a job on
outsourcing basis only.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed
W.P.No.24221 of 2023 before this Court and this Court vide orders
dated 31.08.2023, directed respondent No.2 to consider the
proposal of respondent No.3 in accordance with the directions of
this Court. Vide letter dated 28.11.2023, respondent No.2 in the
writ petition had sent the proposal to the Government for issuance
of necessary directions. Further letters were also addressed on
27.05.2024 and 23.10.2024 to furnish related files in respect of the
petitioner. It is stated that the case of the petitioner was duly
considered and his plea for regularization of service on regular
basis in Class-4 cadre cannot be implemented and the same was
informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.02.2025.
6. Further, the learned Standing Counsel has also forwarded
the copy of the letter dated 23.08.2025, addressed to the
Government wherein the above facts are mentioned and it is stated
that vide letter dated 25.01.2025, the request of the petitioner was
refused and the same has been communicated to the petitioner as
well.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the
course of hearing, when it was pointed out that respondent No.2-
Secretary is not competent to take a decision in this matter, the
said letter dated 25.01.2025 has been withdrawn and the
Government has been taking time for getting instructions from
time to time.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Services-III has produced a
copy of the letter dated 31.10.2025 rejecting the case of the
petitioner for consideration on the ground that the Division Bench
of this Court in W.P.Nos.10744, 11643, 13223 and 14300 of 2023
and W.P.(Tr) No.5972 of 2017 on 19.11.2024 has held that the
contract employees cannot be regularized. However, it is noticed
that the Division Bench has held that the contractual employees,
who have already been regularized need not be terminated.
9. Learned Government Pleader submitted that in view of the
above decision, the case of the petitioner cannot, now be
considered for regularization and it is for the petitioner to challenge
these proceedings, if he so aggrieved.
10. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on
record, this Court finds that the petitioner was admittedly not paid
compensation for donating the land of Ac.2-07 gts for the school
and in lieu of compensation, he had requested for a job and was
given a job on contract basis, as Attender. It is stated by the
petitioner that similarly placed contract employees have been
regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 26.02.2016 and the
petitioner's name was also recommended and therefore, this Court
had directed the respondent to consider the same and to pass
appropriate orders thereon. It is also not in dispute that the
respondents have not challenged the orders of this Court and
therefore it has become final. Had the respondents taken steps to
implement the directions of this Court within the time granted, the
judgment of the Division Bench also would have helped the
petitioner only. The respondents have sat on the file and did not
take any decision thereon inspite of lapse of more than 2 years and
therefore, the petitioner has been deprived of his opportunity of
getting his job regularized. In view of the same, this Court is of the
opinion that the respondents have committed contempt and
therefore, they are liable for punishment. From the communication
produced before this Court dated 31.10.2025, it appears that the
direction was given to the respondents in the writ petition to take a
decision and inform the petitioner, if it is not feasible to regularize
his services. In the afternoon session, the order passed by
respondent No.1 in the writ petition i.e., Secretary to the
Government dt.31.10.2025 is filed.
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the
respondents have committed Contempt of Court and are liable for
punishment. However, in the interest of justice, further period of
two (02) months is given for implementation of the order, failing
which, respondents No.1 and 2 shall be punishable for
imprisonment for a period of two (02) months and also fine of
Rs.2,000/- each. In default, they shall undergo imprisonment of
one (01) week under Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act.
In case, due to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, if
the respondents are not able to implement the order of this Court,
they shall be liable to bear the costs of litigation and shall pay
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 17.11.2025
dv/nit
