Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22154 (AP)

G.Mubharak Khan v. Sri Dr. M.Malakondaiah,

CC/2317/2016 · 2025-09-10

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010312492016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2317 OF 2016 Between: 1. G.Mubharak Khan, S/o G.Shamsher Khan, 40 years, E.556105, Driver, H.No: 4-703, Railwaygate Veedhi, Pileru, Chittor District-500624. ...Petitioner AND 1. Sri Dr M Malakondaiah, Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., RTC House, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada. 2. Sri V Nagasivudu, Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Tirupathi Region, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3. Sri Raghu Prasad, Chief Medical Officer-II, A.P.S.R.T.C. Hospital,Tarnaka,llyderabad. 4. Sri Naga Subba Reddy, Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Mangalam Depot, Tirupathi,Chittoor District ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: KISHORE KUMAR.A Counsel for the Respondents: K VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondents:ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) 2 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri A. Kishore Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 2. The present Contempt Case is filed complaining of inaction on the part of the Respondents for non-complying the Order of the Court dated 15.03.2016 in W.P.No.8291 of 2016. The Order dated 15.03.2016 in W.P.No.8291 of 2016 is passed by placing reliance on a Common Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.36337 of 2015 and batch dated 29.01.2016. 3. The operative portion of the Order in W.P.No.8291 of 2016 is nothing but operative portion of the Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.36337 of 2015 and batch. The issue essentially deals with the posting of the Petitioners therein in any suitable alternative job due to the fact that they have suffered medical disability. 4. On the basis of said Order dated 29.01.2016, having attained finality, the similar Order came be passed in W.P.No.8291 of 2016 on 15.03.2016. However, the facts would emerge as stated by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Respondent Corporation has filed Writ Appeal bearing W.A.No.666 of 2016 and batch against the Order dated 29.01.2016 in W.P.No.36337 of 205 and batch. The said W.A.No.666 of 2016 and batch came to be dismissed on 08.09.2016. 5. The matters were carried in appeal by way of Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a batch of cases in Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.32016 of 2016) and batch was pleased to allow the Civil Appeals by setting aside the concurrent findings of the Learned Single Judge and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 23.02.2017. The operative portion of the Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is usefully extracted hereunder: 3 “In view of the above, we allow these appeals in above terms and hold that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act will be available only to those who are covered by Section 2 (i) of the Act. No costs. It will be open for the appellants-Corporations to take decision on individual grievances of the employees and the employees are at liberty to take their remedies in terms of the above judgment.” 6. Since the Petitioner herein is complaining against the non- implementation of the Order of this Court dated 15.03.2016 in W.P.No.8291 of 2016, which was passed by placing reliance on other Common Order dated 29.01.2016 in W.P.No.36337 of 2015 and batch, it has to be held that the case of the Petitioners in W.P.No.36337 of 2015 and batch and the Petitioner in W.P.No.8291 of 2016 is governed by the final outcome in the Common Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2017 and batch dated 23.02.2017. 7. In this view of the matter, this Contempt Case cannot be entertained. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. No Order as to Costs. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 11.09.2025 JKS 4 60 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2317 OF 2016 11.09.2025 JKS