1 APHC010254202019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 653 OF 2019 Between: 1.D.SAIBABU, S/O LATE GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER / EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI VENKATESHWARA SWAMY DEVASTANAM, TIRUMALAGIRI, JAGGAIAHPET MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER AND 1.V KOTESWARAMMA, V.KOTESWARAMMA, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI DURGA MALLESWARA SWAMY VARLA DEVASTANAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2.SRI K RAMA CHANDRA MOHAN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SRI DURGA MALLESWARA SWAMY VARLA DEVASTHANAM VIJAYAWADA R2 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 06 03 2025 IN C C NO 653 OF 2019 ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.G V SHIVAJI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1.K MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS AR) 2.KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments,AP Region. 2 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Smt. K.S.G.Padmavathi, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.V.Shivaji, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Koppera Koteswara Rao, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. The Order of this Court in W.P.No.27423 of 2012 dated 28.10.2015 is to the effect that the Ld. Single Judge of this Court has given a direction to the Respondents to fix the Pay of the Petitioner herein on par with the 4th Respondent in the category of Assistant Executive Engineer without exceeding the statutory limits prescribed under the Endowments Act. 3. The present Contempt Case is filed challenging the non- compliance of the Order of the Ld. Single Judge as mentioned above. 4. The Respondent No.2, who is serving as a former Executive Officer has filed Counter-Affidavit along with certain documents. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents has drawn the attention of this court to the Proceeding of the Executive Officer, SDMSV Devastanam, Vijayawada bearing Rc.No.A1/2680/2012, dated 26.10.2019. The operative portion of the said Proceeding is usefully extracted hereunder: “In continuation of this office communication vide reference 1st cited, Sri D.Sai Babu, the then Asst. Executive Officer, presently working as Asst.Commissioner & Executive Officer, Sri Venkateswara Swemy vari Devasthanam, Tirumalagiri (V), Jaggaiahpeta(M), Krishna District, is hereby informed that the extension of monetary benefits in the cadre of P.A to E.O to Sri S. Achutha Ramaiah, PRO w.e.f from 12.09.2003, which is under objection of State Audit, was not ratified by the Commissioner Endowments Department vide reference 2nd cited and action is under process to recover the monetary benefits paid to the individual from his retirement benefits. Copy enclosed for reference. 3 Therefore, Sri D. Sai Babu, A.E.O who is the petitioner in WP No.27423/2012 is informed that he is also not entitled for monetary benefits in the cadre of PA to EO w.e.f. 12.09.2003 on par with his junior i.e. Sri S.Achuta Ramalah, PRO, which is the basis for preferring Writ Petition No.27423/2012 by him, as per the rejection orders of the Commissioner, Endowments Department.” 5. The above extract would indicate that the Respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition namely Sri S. Achutha Ramaiah, PRO was drawing a Pay which is not accepted by the State Audit inasmuch State Audit has raised an objection with regard to the payment made to Sri S. Achutha Ramaiah (Respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition) w.e.f 12.09.2003 and therefore the Pay fixed in favour of Sri S. Achutha Ramaiah was not ratified by the State Audit. 6. The above Instruction would also indicate that action has been initiated for recovery of the monetary benefits already paid to Sri S. Achutha Ramaiah. The said Proceeding would also indicate that the Petitioner herein is also therefore not entitled to similar benefit as availed by Sri S. Achutha Ramaiah in view of the recovery that is sought to be made. 7. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Official Respondents have not complied with the direction of this Court dated 28.10.2015. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in this Contempt Case. 8. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. 4 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 15.09.2025 Mnr 84 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE No.653 OF 2019 Dt: 15.09.2025 Mnr