APHC010018502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 94/2025 Between: 1. SK. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. SK. SUBEDAR AGED 44 YEARS, OCC CONDUCTOR, E NO. 627140, APSRTC, ONGOLE DEPOT PRAKASHAM DISTRICT, R/O. H NO. 35-4-94 (1), SEETHARAM PURAM, ONGOLE, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI D TIRUMALA RAO, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC, VIJAYAWADA 2. SRI D SRINIVASA RAO, THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, ONGOLE PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC 2 The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Manoj Maki Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S. Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 2. The present Contempt Case is filed for non-compliance of the Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28585 of 2023 dated 27.03.2024. 3. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondents herein continued to pay the Subsistence Allowance upto the month of August, 2024. Thereafter, the said Respondents have abruptly stopped the payment of Subsistence Allowance. It is also stated that the Petitioner herein got issued the legal notice on 21.10.2024. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that from September, 2024 onwards, the Respondents have not paid the Subsistence Allowance. It is also submitted that the Subsistence Allowance from September, 2024 till date has been paid to the Petitioner only after issuance of notice in the Contempt Proceedings. 4. Sri S. Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents would submit that the Respondents have complied with the Order of this Court on 04.03.2025. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant Rules relating to Removal, Dismissal and Suspension. He would state that as per Para No.2 of F.R.53, no payment under Sub Rule (1) shall be made unless the Government servant furnishes the Certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or and vocation. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents would submit that the Respondents have not violated the Order of the Court willfully and that the Subsistence Allowance was not paid from September, 2024 onwards, for the reason that the Petitioner has failed to submit the Certificate stating that the Petitioner has not gainfully been engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. 3 6. Sub-rule (2) of the F.R.53 relating to Dismissal, Removal and Suspension reads as under: “No payment under sub-rule (2) shall be made unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation”. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents would submit that the Petitioner has submitted the required Certificate for the months from September, 2023 till February, 2025 only on 28.02.2025, and therefore, the arrears of the Subsistence Allowance were released on 04.03.2025. Learned Counsel for the Respondents would submit that the Petitioner cannot take undue advantage of his own fault. He would submit that the Petitioner has not complied with the statutory duty in submitting the Certificate, and therefore, the Respondents could not comply with the Order of this Court only because of the non-compliance of the statutory condition by the Petitioner herein. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Official Respondents have refused to accept the Certificate from September, 2024 onwards. Learned Counsel for the Respondents would submit that the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is factually incorrect. He would submit that the Petitioner could have sent the same by way of registered post in such an eventuality that the Official Respondents have refused to accept the Certificate in physical form. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner could have even sent an e-mail to this effect. He would also drawn the attention of this Court to the legal notice sent by the Petitioner dated 21.10.2024 and would contend that the said legal notice does not whisper about the Respondents refusing to receive or accept the Certificate in the physical form. 9. This Court has perused the legal notice dated 21.01.2024, which is bereft of any such averment that the Respondents have declined to receive the Certificates. It is also noticed that the Petitioner has not made any attempt to forward Certificates to the Respondents either by way of post or through 4 e-mail or through the whatsapp message to any responsible Officer in the Corporation (APSRTC). 10. Having taken note of the same, this Court is of the view that the non-compliance of the Order of this Court in continuing to pay the Subsistence Allowance had been occasioned by the Petitioner alone, and therefore the Petitioner cannot take undue advantage of his own default. The requirement as stipulated in sub-rule (2) of F.R.53 is to ensure that during the course of enquiry or investigation, an employee would not gainfully be employed for the purpose of deciding the entitlement of Subsistence Allowance. This statutory requirement, although complied with by the Petitioner upto August, 2024, for the reasons best known to the Petitioner, he has abruptly stopped such compliance from September, 2024 onwards. 11. In the above premise, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Respondents are not guilty of violation of the Order of this Court. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed as being bereft of any merit. No Order as to Costs. 12.Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 19.03.2025 JKS 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD C.C.No.94 of 2025 19.03.2025 JKS