APHC010280462020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT CASE Nos.: 1074 & 1075 of 2020 CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1074/2020 Between: C. Jonathan ...PETITIONER AND Sri B Rajasekhar and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1075/2020 Between: A. Kedareswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND Sri B Rajasekhar Ias and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA 2 RRR, J & MRK, J C.C.Nos.1074 & 1075 of 2020 The Court made the following common order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) As the issues in both these case are one and the same, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order. 2. In both these cases, the petitioners are working as part-time junior lecturers in Junior Colleges in Vizianagaram and SPSR Nellore District. They had approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, by way of O.A.Nos.2280 of 2018 and 2810 of 2018, seeking continuation of their services as part-time lecturers, till they attain the age of 60 years. 3. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal, by an order, dated 09.10.2018 in O.A.No.2280 of 2018 and by an order, dated 18.12.2018 in O.A.No.2810 of 2018, had directed that the petitioners were to be continued as part-time lecturers till they attain the age of 60 years. 4. Aggrieved by the non-implementation of these orders, the petitioners have approached this Court, by way of W.P.Nos.3839 of 2020 and 3879 of 2020, for implementation of the order of the Tribunal. This Court, by orders, dated 17.02.2020, in both these Writ Petitions, had directed the respondents to take action as per the orders of the Tribunal and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of the order. 3 RRR, J & MRK, J C.C.Nos.1074 & 1075 of 2020 5. The respondents are said to have rejected the requests of the petitioners, by way of two separate orders, dated 12.03.2020. Aggrieved by the said orders of rejection, the petitioners have approached this Court, by way of these Contempt Cases. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the orders of the Tribunal required the respondents to continue the petitioners in service till they attain the age of 60 years and the same has not been done. He would further submit that the petitioners are suffering with monetory loss on account of not permitting the petitioners to continue as part-time lecturers and that the said order of rejection is clearly violative of the directions of the Court. 7. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that both the writ petitioners had already attained the age of 60 years by the time the Writ Petition came to be disposed of by this Court and consequently, nothing further remained for implementing the orders of this Court. He would also submit that the respondent authorities had rejected the requests of the petitioners for continuing them till they attain the age of 60 years, by way of orders, dated 12.03.2020. 8. The order of the Tribunal, which was sought to be implemented, was to continue the petitioners till they attain the age of 60 years. It is an admitted fact on both sides that the petitioners had already attained the age of 60 years, by the time this Court had passed orders in the aforesaid Writ 4 RRR, J & MRK, J C.C.Nos.1074 & 1075 of 2020 Petitions. Consequently, the order had worked itself out as nothing further remained for implementation. 9. However, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners would still be entitled for payment of salaries, etc. in as much as they had been illegally removed from services before they had attained the age of 60 years, despite the orders of the Tribunal. 10. In view of this fact, we do not find any reason to see that there has been violation of the directions of this Court and both the Contempt Cases are dismissed. However, it would always be open to the petitioners to agitate their rights in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 20.01.2025 MJA 5 RRR, J & MRK, J C.C.Nos.1074 & 1075 of 2020 134 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT CASE Nos.: 1074 & 1075 of 2020 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 20.01.2025 MJA