Smt. Anita Ramachandran I.A.S vs M.Ravinder Reddy
2026 Latest Caselaw 83 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt. Anita Ramachandran I.A.S vs M.Ravinder Reddy on 26 March, 2026

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

   IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                   AT HYDERABAD

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
                                   AND
 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

         LETTER PATENT APPEAL Nos.3, 6, 7 & 8 of 2024

                            DATE: 26.03.2026

Between:
Smt. Anita Ramachandran I.A.S.
                                                               ...Appellant
                                   AND

M.Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Bapu Reddy and others.
                                                             ...Respondents


COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the learned Additional Advocate General for the

appellant; and Mr. Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned counsel for the

respondents.

2. Since the issue involved and the factual matrix being common in

all these appeals, they are heard together and decided by this Common

Judgment.

3. For convenience, the facts in Letter Patent Appeal No.3 of 2024

are discussed hereunder.

4. The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Letter Patents Act is

filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the learned Single

Judge in C.C.No.806 of 2023, decided on 30.07.2024.

5. The facts of the case are that the writ petitioners (respondent

Nos.1 to 6) have originally filed a writ petition before learned Single

Judge bearing W.P.No.35664 of 2017. The said writ petition was

disposed of on 09.12.2022 setting aside the impugned order dated

27.10.2016 of proceedings bearing No.37/CPR&RE/C2/2015. The

learned Single Judge directed the respondents (Government authorities)

to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services

in accordance with law in the light of various judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. The authorities were given two months from the date of

receipt of the order to pass appropriate orders and communicate the

decision to the petitioners. For ready reference paragraph No.27

W.P.No.35664 of 2017 is reproduced hereunder, viz.,

"27. 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 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 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."

6. In compliance with the learned Single Judge's order dated

09.12.2022, the then Director, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment

examined the matter in accordance with the Telangana State Policy on

regularization and the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On

03.02.2023, proceedings were issued rejecting the request for

regularization of services of respondent Nos.1 to 6 with reasons for the

rejection. Aggrieved, the respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed a Contempt Case

bearing C.C.No.806 of 2023 seeking to punish the respondents

(Government authorities) for willful violation and deliberate

disobedience of the Court's order dated 09.12.2022. For ready reference,

the operative part of C.C.No.806 of 2023 is reproduced hereunder, viz.,

"20..........The respondents are directed to forthwith re-consider the proceedings Nos.37/CPR&RE/C2/2018-1, dated 03.02.2023 issued in compliance to the orders of this Court, dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No. 35664 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.35664 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.35664 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 rectify and remedy the mistake done in considering the orders of this Court, dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.35664 of 2017 in true spirit."

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.07.2024 in C.C. No.806 of 2023

the respondent No.3 / appellant herein has preferred the present Letter

Patent Appeal.

8. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant

contended that the proceedings dated 03.02.2023 constitute compliance

with the order dated 09.12.2022 (passed in W.P.No.35664 of 2017) and

the learned Single Judge while exercising contempt jurisdiction,

exceeded the permissible limits by directing reconsideration and issuing

directions that effectively compel regularization contrary to Section 7 of

the Telangana (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and

Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for short

the 'Act of 1994'). According to the Special Government Pleader, the

contempt jurisdiction is not a forum for adjudicating the merits of

administrative decisions or for substituting administrative discretion and

that the direction to implement in true spirit amounts to a de facto

mandate of regularization.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, support

the impugned order, contending that the proceedings of contempt merely

reiterated grounds already considered and negated in the judgment dated

09.12.2022, and that the learned Single Judge's direction was only to

ensure meaningful compliance without deciding the merits afresh.

10. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on

perusal of records, the core issue for consideration in this case is

"whether the learned Single Judge while exercising contempt jurisdiction

exceeded the permissible judicial limits by directing reconsideration and

requiring a fresh reasoned speaking order implementing the judgment

dated 09.12.2022 in W.P.No.35664 of 2017 in true spirit, thereby

allegedly enlarging the scope of the original direction and compelling

regularization contrary to statutory provisions?"

11. We are of the considered opinion that the order dated 09.12.2022

in W.P. No.35664 of 2017 directed the authorities to 'consider the case of

the writ petitioners for regularization of their services in accordance with

law' and to 'pass appropriate orders' within a specified time. This

direction couched in the language of consideration and appropriate

orders, vested the authorities with the discretion to examine the request

in the light of applicable statutory provisions, including Section 7 of the

Act of 1994 and to arrive at a decision consistent with law.

12. The contempt proceedings dated 03.02.2023 rejecting the request

on the grounds of absence of sanctioned posts and engagement on need

basis constitute a decision taken in purported compliance with the

learned Single Judge's direction. Now whether that decision is correct on

merits, or whether it reflects adequate application of mind to the legal

principles discussed in the judgment dated 09.12.2022 in W.P. No.35664

of 2017 are questions that go to the merits of the administrative decision

itself, and not to the question of willful disobedience or contempt.

13. Contempt jurisdiction is a narrow and extraordinary jurisdiction

exercisable only to secure compliance with the Court's order and to

punish willful disobedience or breach. It is not an appellate or

supervisory jurisdiction over the merits of administrative action taken in

ostensible compliance with a Court's order. The distinction is critical, if

an authority passes an order in response to a Court's direction but that

order is alleged to be incorrect, inadequate or unreasoned, proper remedy

is not contempt, but a further appeal or an application for clarification or

modification of the original order or in appropriate cases, a fresh round

of judicial review. The contempt Court cannot, in the guise of enforcing

compliance, assume the role of a writ Court and issue fresh substantive

directions requiring reconsideration and passing of a 'reasoned speaking

order implementing the order dated 09.12.2022 in W.P.No.35664 of 2017

in true spirit'. Such a direction is, in substance, a fresh writ direction

which the contempt Court has no jurisdiction to issue. By directing

reconsideration and insisting on a reasoned order consistent with the

'true spirit' of the writ judgment the learned Single Judge has, in effect,

exercised writ jurisdiction under the garb of contempt proceedings

thereby transgressing the permissible boundaries of contempt

jurisdiction.

14. It is also important to note that the word 'appropriate' in the

direction to 'pass appropriate orders' in the writ judgment dated

09.12.2022 in W.P.No.35664 of 2017 connotes a discretion vested in the

authorities to either accept or reject the request for regularization, based

on a proper consideration of the applicable law and facts. The use of the

term 'appropriate' does not mandate or compel the authorities to pass an

order regularizing the services of the writ petitioners. If we examine the

true spirit of the writ judgment, it becomes evident that the learned

Single Judge directed a consideration of the case in accordance with law

leaving it to the authorities to arrive at a decision that is legally

sustainable and factually justified. This direction was not a direction to

regularize, but a direction to consider and decide. Therefore, an order

rejecting the request, if based on valid legal grounds such as the statutory

bar under Section 7 of the Act of 1994 or the absence of sanctioned

posts, would constitute an 'appropriate order' within the meaning of the

writ judgment, and would amount to compliance with the Court's

direction. The learned Single Judge, by requiring reconsideration and

insisting on an order implementing the judgment in 'its true spirit'

appears to have misconstrued the scope of the original direction and

imposed an obligation on the authorities that was not contemplated by

the writ judgment.

15. Recently, this Court in CA.No.7 of 2025 held at paragraph Nos.18

to 20 as under, viz.,

"18. Even otherwise it cannot be expected that while hearing a contempt petition, the contempt Court has got the powers to get the order executed by converting the contempt Court as an Execution Court or the contempt proceedings into an execution proceedings. Under the normal parlance, drawing a contempt means either the contemnor has committed a contempt and if yes, what can be the punishment that could be passed, or it could be a case where if the contemnor has not committed a contempt, in that situation the contempt proceedings has to be dropped and the contemnor has to be discharged from the contempt proceedings. By no stretch of imagination can the contempt petition filed seeking for appropriate punishment for the contemnor be converted into either an execution proceedings or another round of writ petition. This in other words means that while exercising the contempt jurisdiction, the Court would not be in a position to pass or issue an relief in the nature of writ or again pass some direction which was already passed in the original writ petition.

19. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to one of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaduranga Kanthraj URS and Another vs. P. Ravi Kumar and Others 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, held at paragraph Nos.1.10, 1.11 and 1.12 as under:

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3681

"1.10. In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is 'wilful'. It means knowingly- intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability and would also not include in voluntary or negligent actions. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same.

It is too well settled that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable.

1.11. The weapon of contempt will not be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. The paramount consideration is given to maintain court's dignity andmajesty of law. In Sudhir Vasudeva v.

George Ravishekeran this Court hasobserved that a Court exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 must not travel beyond the four corners of the orders in relation towhich contempt has been alleged. That the Court hearing a contempt petition ought to restrict the scope of its enquiry to such directions which are explicit in the judgment or orders of which contempt has been alleged.

1.12. The civil contempt would mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of this Court. What would be relevant is the "wilful disobedience". Hence,

knowledge of having acted in disregard to an order is sine qua non for being proceeded with if there is a deliberate, conscience and intentional act then the jurisdiction can be clutched."

20. It is also not proper on the part of the learned Single Bench to have passed a conditional order of complying the order dated16.02.2023, failing which there shall be a punishment of imprisonment and fine. Before convicting a person under the contempt jurisdiction, it is mandatorily required to frame a charge. The contemnor should be made known of the charge leveled against him and he should be permitted to plead guilty and thereafter draw appropriate proceedings after recording evidence on either side."

16. It is also pertinent to note that after the writ petition was allowed

by the learned Single Bench directing the authorities to consider the case

for regularization in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order,

the authorities subsequently passed another order dated 03.02.2023

rejecting the request for regularization. In view of this factual matrix, the

respondents / petitioners Nos.1 to 6 had a clear alternative remedy

available to them, they could have filed a fresh writ petition challenging

the order dated 03.02.2023 on the ground that the directions contained in

the judgment dated 09.12.2022 were not properly implemented or

complied with. Instead of availing this remedy, they chose to invoke the

contempt jurisdiction of the Court. This choice of remedy is significant

because contempt proceedings are not intended to operate as a substitute

for judicial review or appellate scrutiny of administrative orders passed

in ostensible compliance with court directions. The availability and non-

exercise of the alternative remedy of filing a writ petition reinforces the

view that the present contempt proceedings were misconceived and that

the impugned order directing reconsideration and a fresh reasoned order

amounts to an impermissible exercise of writ jurisdiction under the guise

of contempt enforcement.

17. The impugned order dated 30.07.2024, in C.C.No.806 of 2023,

insofar as it directs reconsideration and passing of a fresh reasoned order

constitutes an impermissible exercise of writ jurisdiction in contempt

proceedings and is liable to be set aside. The proceedings dated

03.02.2023 in proceedings bearing No.37/CPR&RE/C2/2015 whether

right or wrong on merits, represent a decision taken in response to the

writ Court's direction, and therefore cannot form the basis of a finding of

contempt in the absence of proof of willful disobedience.

18. Accordingly, the instant Later Patent Appeal No.3 of 2024 stands

allowed and impugned order dated 30.07.2024 in C.C.No.806 of 2023

passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. As a consequence of the

lead case getting allowed, the other appeals i.e. Letter Patent Appeal

Nos.6, 7 & 8 of 2024 also stands allowed.

19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand

closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

______________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J

Date: 26.03.2026 GSD