[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Smt. G.Chamundeswari vs Smt. A.Surya Kumari Ias on 9 April, 2026
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO
NANDIKONDA
C.C.No.923 OF 2026
09.04.2026
Between:
G.Chamundeswari
...Petitioner
AND
A.Surya Kumari, IAS,
Principal Secretary, Women Development and
Child Welfare Department, State of Andhra Pradesh,
Secretariat, Room No.269, First Floor, Building No.3,
Velagapudi, Guntur, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh
and another
...Respondents
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Mr. S.Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. A. Raghuram Mahadev, learned counsel representing
Mr. B. Rajeshwar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the State
of Andhra Pradesh for the respondents. Perused the record.
2. The instant is a contempt case which has been filed alleging
non-compliance of the order dated 24.03.2025 in W.P.No.19299 of
2023.
3. The operative part of the order in W.P.No.19299 of 2023
reads as under:
"24. As a consequence, it is ordered that the petitioner shall
be deemed to have voluntarily retired w.e.f 31.08.2008 and
is entitled for all consequential pension and pensionary
benefits which she would have been otherwise entitled as
on 31.08.2008. However, in the event of the Petitioner
going on leave after exhausting all the leaves that were
there to her credit, the pensionary benefits and the effective
date of voluntary retirement would be in accordance with
the provisions of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 43 of the Pension
Rules which prescribes the situation where the employee
retires while on leave. It is further ordered that the petitioner
shall be entitled for all consequential benefits including
arrears of pension from the date of voluntary retirement
becoming effective. The liability, as has been discussed
earlier, falls only upon the State of A.P., as on this date the
new State had not been carved out and that the petitioner
was working in the territories which even as on this date is
within the State of A.P. i.e., Kurnool District. Let the entire
arrears of pension be calculated and processed within an
outer limit of four (04) months and further pension also be
regularly paid.
25. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner has
been denied the benefits of retirement unnecessarily for a
long time because of the developments that took place in
between. We are not imposing interest on the arrears of
pension. Nonetheless, if the State of A.P. fails to clear the
arrears of pension and other benefits within a period of
four (04) months as directed, the entire pensionary benefits
would carry interest at the rate of 7%."
4. The instant contempt case has been filed in February, 2026
alleging that the interest part, as ordered by this Bench, has not
been paid. However, undisputedly the respondent as also the
petitioner do not dispute the fact that substantial compliance of the
order so far as the arrears of pension and other benefits is
concerned has already been released, way back on 01.10.2025.
Given the said fact of the entire monetary benefits being extended
not in dispute, we are of the considered opinion that substantial
compliance of the order and directions of this Bench have been
complied with.
5. As regards non-consideration of the payment of the interest
is concerned, this Bench itself in paragraph 25 of the order had
very categorically held that we are not imposing interest on the
arrears of pension. However, expecting a favourable action on the
part of the respondent, we had given four months time for
compliance of the order, failing which the arrears would carry
interest. However, the respondent has now come up counter-
affidavit showing the date-wise details of how steps were taken
ensuring that compliance is done and it appears that in between
principally having accepted compliance, the respondent had
forwarded the case to the office of the Accountant General and in
the process, some reasonable time has got extended over and
above four months time granted by this Bench. Accepting the
justification provided by the respondent, we do not think it a proper
and justifiable case for initiating contempt proceedings against the
respondent.
6. The contempt case, accordingly, stands closed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
09.04.2026
Lrkm
