THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO.6660 of 2023 ORDER:- 1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining willful disobedience in implementing the Order dated 18.04.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.18793 of 2020. 2. Heard Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the Respondent and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner filed W.P.No.18793 of 2020 to issue writ of mandamus declaring that (a) the order in Letter No 66613/L1360 dated 31.03.2020 passed by the 1st Respondent herein rejecting the claim of the Petitioners No 1 to 9 and the late husbands of the Petitioners No 10 to 12 for counting the period of their temporary service prior to their absorption into permanent service of the Bank from 2012 onwards for the purpose of grant of service benefits namely gratuity pension provident fund increments medical aid and bonus communicated to the Petitioners herein Nos. 8, 10 and 11 (b) the circular No.519Ref 3/100 dated 26.03.2013 issued by the Bank to the extent that the temporary service prior to absorption shall not be counted as service for any other benefits except for payment of gratuity (c) Regulation No.15 of Andhra Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995 for short the Regulations to the 2 NV,J C.C.No.6660 of 2023 extent that it excludes the counting of period of service prior to the date of appointment on permanent basis for qualifying service are illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondents herein to revise the service benefits namely gratuity pension provident fund increments leave encashment medical aid and bonus of the Petitioners Nos.1 to 9 the late husbands of Petitioners Nos.10 to 12 and the Petitioners Nos.I3 to 16 by counting the period of temporary service prior to their absorption on permanent basis and pay the arrears of the benefits with interest thereon. 4. On 18.04.2023, this Court disposed of W.P.No.18793 of 2020, directing the respondents to include the temporary service of the petitioners prior to their absorption into service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and for gratuity within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, without implementing the orders of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No. 18793 of 2020 dated 18.04.2023 in true spirit, the respondents deliberately flouted the orders of this Court and did not include the temporary service of the petitioners prior to their absorption into service, thereby it resulted in difference in pensionary benefits. He submits that, even though this 3 NV,J C.C.No.6660 of 2023 Court specifically directed to include the entire temporary service of the petitioners prior to their absorption into service for calculation of pensionary benefits and gratuity, but in deviation of the purport of the order passed by this Court, the respondents have taken qualified service either for pensionary benefits or gratuity as only 15 years in respect of Petitioner No.1, whereas, as per the terms of the judgment, the petitioner is entitled for inclusion of total service of 28 years 7 months i.e. from 01.01.1986 to 30.01.2014 rounding upto 29 years. If the said length of service, including temporary service is taken into consideration, Petitioner No.1 would not have been entitled to total pension arrears of Rs.1,41,734/- and towards Gratuity – Rs.1,50,715/-. But, the respondents paid total pension arrears of Rs.77,665/-, which is not in accordance with the terms of the judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the above facts are in relation to Petitioner No.1. Similarly, the same instance occurred in respect of remaining petitioners, which is duly explained and narrated through their reply affidavit. Therefore, respondents have not complied with the orders in true letter and spirit, but complied partly, as per their wish and will, and not included the entire temporary service of the petitioners into total service for awarding pensionary and gratuity benefits. This inaction itself on the part of the respondents amounts to violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No. 18793 of 2020 dated 18.04.2023. He further contends that, 4 NV,J C.C.No.6660 of 2023 failure on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders of this Court would amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon’ble Court, and, therefore, they are liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Complaining the same, the petitioners filed the present Contempt Case. 6. Dr.K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit contending that, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No. 18793 of 2020 dated 18.04.2023, as per the records available with the bank, the respondents have included the temporary service of the petitioners and after such inclusion and considering the entire qualified services of the each and every petitioner, they were paid pensionary and gratuity benefits, as per their entitlement. He submits that, Kasi Raju (1st petitioner) was paid Rs.95,205/- on 22.01.2025; Guttula Satyanarayana (6th petitioner) was paid Rs.46,251/- on 22.01.2025; Betapudi Venkata Rao (7th petitioner) was paid Rs.1,47,463/- on 22.012025, K. Saraswathi (12th petitioner) was paid Rs.14,190/- on 22.01.2025, Nellapalli Satti Babu (15th petitioner) was paid Rs.1,37,031/- on 22.01.2025. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted a Memo dated 23.01.2025, informing compliance with the orders of this Hon’ble Court and providing complete details of the petitioners, including their names, PF numbers, dates of joining and 5 NV,J C.C.No.6660 of 2023 retirement, qualifying service, revised qualifying service, basic pension, revised basic pension, commutation arrears, and pension arrears. It was stated that, out of the 16 writ petitioners, 8 are pension optees, 7 are PF optees, and 1 is under NPS. Among the 8 pension optees, the pensions of 6 petitioners have been revised to include their temporary service period; one petitioner had no temporary service, and one petitioner is a family pensioner. The respondents submit that they have complied with the orders of this Court in accordance with the records available with the bank, in both letter and spirit. Regarding discrepancies related to the inclusion of petitioners’ temporary service in the bank records, these are attributed to the unavailability of relevant documentation. The respondents have stated that if the petitioners provide documentary evidence substantiating their claim of non-inclusion of temporary service for pensionary and gratuity benefit calculations, such evidence will be duly considered and processed. If the petitioners are found entitled, they will receive payment in accordance with the law. Additionally, the respondents have advised the learned counsel for the petitioners to submit detailed representations. If the petitioners are entitled to any further pensionary benefits or inclusion of temporary service in their qualifying service, along with the necessary supporting documents, the respondents will review earlier decisions and consider the additional material and the submissions and issue appropriate orders. Based upon 6 NV,J C.C.No.6660 of 2023 the submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submit that, the directions of this Hon’ble Court has been complied with and requested to close the contempt case against the respondents. 7. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, the order of this Court in clear and categorical terms directed the respondents to include the temporary service of the petitioners prior to their absorption into service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and for gratuity. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a discrepancy in the calculation of qualifying service for pensionary benefits and gratuity, as the respondents have excluded most of the temporary service from qualifying service on the basis of non-availability of records. This contention, which the petitioner argues is contrary to the orders of this Court, is a matter that requires verification of records from both the petitioners and the respondents. Therefore, the issue raised by the learned counsel regarding the non-inclusion of the entire temporary service, while including only a part thereof, cannot be adjudicated within the scope of the present contempt proceedings. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that the respondents have included the temporary service as directed by this 7 NV,J C.C.No.6660 of 2023 Court, based on the records available with them. Consequently, the claims of the petitioners cannot be considered in the absence of supporting records. However, if the petitioners furnish evidence substantiating their claim regarding the period of temporary service, such evidence will be duly considered and processed by the respondents. As such, the petitioners shall submit requisite documents to the respondents as early as possible. After receipt of the same, the respondents shall consider the same and take appropriate action. Therefore, the scope of the contempt proceedings in the present case cannot be extended to cover disputed factual issues between the petitioners and respondents. Nevertheless, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners remain entitled to pursue their claims through appropriate forum, as noted above. 10. On overall consideration of the factual position and in view of the communication addressed by the respondents dated 23.01.2025 and pursuant to the payment particulars furnished before this Court, it appears that that the orders of this Court are complied with, as per the records available with the bank, as stated by the respondents by their sworn affidavit. 11. It is a settled principle of law that this Court while adjudicating upon a contempt petition shall not delve into adjudication upon the disputed 8 NV,J C.C.No.6660 of 2023 facts since the same would lead to the Court transgressing its boundaries as enshrined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, thereby, going beyond the judgment which has been alleged to be violated. The Court, while deciding upon the contempt petition, shall restrict itself to adjudicating upon the limited aspect which is whether there is a "wilful disobedience" by the party against whom contempt proceeding is being sought to be initiated. This Court while adjudicating upon a contempt petition shall not decide upon the disputed question of facts. This Court under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall only adjudicate upon the fact whether there is a wilfull disobedience of any judgment/order passed by the Court. 12. In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.07.2024 have been complied with. 13. In the result, contempt case is closed. No costs. 13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this contempt case shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:04.09.2025 SP 9 NV,J C.C.No.6660 of 2023 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO.6660 of 2023 Date: 04.09.2025 W SP