1 APHC010358072014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 189/2014 Between: 1. KUM (DR) M.R.PADMAJA,, D/O LATE V.RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, LECTURER IN HINDI, SRI SAIBABA NATIONAL DEGREE COLLEGE, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI P L N REDDY, CORRESPONDENT, PRESENTLY WORKING SRI SAI BABA NATIONAL DEGREE COLLEGE, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2. SMT B UDAYA LAKSHMI I A S, COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF AP NAMPALLY HYDERABAD 3. SRI B NARSIMHULU, REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION CUDDAPAH REGION CUDDAPAH RR2 AND 3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 22 12 2015 VIDE APPL NO 1413/2015 4. DR NARAYAN BHARATH GUPTA I A S, COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH GROUND AND SECOND FLOOR SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA COLONY GARUDADRI KK TOWERS MANGALAGIRI GUNTUR DISTRICT R4 IS IMPLEADED PER COURT ORDER DATED 02 07 2025 VIDE I A NO 1 OF 2025 IN C C NO 189 OF 2014 5. SRI D NAGA LINGA REDDY, REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KADAPA REGION BESIDE GOVERNMENT DEGREE COLLEGE FOR MEN YSR KADAPA R5 IS SUO-MOTU IMPLEADED PER COURT ORDER DATED 02 07 2025 2 VIDE I A NO 1 OF 2025 IN C C NO 189 OF 2014 ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SATYA SREENIVASA RAO K Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. V V PRABHAKARA RAO 2. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Deepak B.R, learned Counsel appearing online assisted by Sri Satya Sreenivasa Rao K, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri V.V. Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Sri Rama Chandra Rao Gurram, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5. 2. The present Contempt Case has been filed complaining inaction on the part of the Respondents in respect of the Order passed by this Court dated 30.07.2013 in W.P.No.11979 of 2004. The prayer sought in the Writ Petition is as under: “(i) to declare the proceedings Rc.No.704/A3/2001 dated 2-3- 2001 of the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Cuddapah Region, Cuddapah including the consequential order dated 6-4-2001 (served on the petitioner on 03-05-2001 after the obtaining of interim order on 13-4-2001) as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same (ii) compel the respondents to continue the petitioner in service as lecturer in Hindi (iii) declare the action of the respondents in declaring the post of Lecturer in Hindi as surplus and passing orders of termination without considering the petitioners case for re- employment as per G.O.Ms.No.978 Education, dated 12-7-1988 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction (iv) to compel the respondents to pay the petitioner the scale of pay attached to the post of Lecturer in Hindi from 20-08-1982.” 3 3. After considering the case of the Petitioner, this Court, vide Order dated 30.07.2013, had passed the Final Order. The relevant portion of the Order dated 30.07.2013 is usefully extracted hereunder: “7. These issues fall for consideration only when the orders issued by the 3rd respondent had been issued with prior approval of the competent authority. Where the 3rd respondent issued the termination orders without prior approval of the competent authority, the very termination is not sustainable. Consequently, the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 06-4-2001 terminating the services of the petitioner are found to be improper, illegal and are accordingly set aside. 8. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.The petitioner may work out her remedies regarding the continuation of service and Scale of Pay through appropriate representation. No costs.” 4. The above extract of the operative portion of the Order would clearly indicate that this Court had allowed the prayer No.1 holding that the termination of the services of the Petitioner is illegal. Insofar as prayer No.2 is concerned, it is submitted at the bar that the Petitioner had already superannuated on 31.05.2012 and therefore, by the date that this Court had passed the Order i.e., on 30.07.2013, the Petitioner has already superannuated and therefore, that part of the prayer cannot be acted upon. Insofar as the prayers 3 & 4 (extracted supra), this Court had clearly stated in the operative portion in para 8 that the Writ Petitioner may work out her remedies regarding continuation of service and scale of pay through appropriate representation. This would indicate that this Court has not given any finding as regards the entitlement of scale of pay in favour of the Writ Petitioner. 5. Sri V.V. Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, has drawn the attention of this Court to paraNos.4 & 5 of the additional Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.1 (I.A.No.2 of 2025). Paras 4 & 5 of the additional Affidavit dated 10.10.2025 is usefully extracted hereunder: 4 “4. I respectfully submit that by the date of the Hon'ble Court's judgment on 30.07.2013, the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation. Accordingly, reinstatement into service was not feasible. However, in full compliance with the Hon'ble Court's judgment and in good faith, the management has paid the petitioner her last drawn consolidated salary of ₹1,500/- per month for the period from 06.04.2001 to 31.12.2012, totalling 141 months, amounting to ₹2,11,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eleven Thousand Five Hundred only). This college is being run by a charitable society, under the name and style of "Anantapur District National Educational Trust", without any profit motive, unlike the corporate colleges of the present day. It is to be noted that this amount is being paid to the petitioner, without obtaining an iota of service from her. It is quite unlikely that she remained unemployed all these years. 5. I respectfully submit that the said amount was paid through SBI DD/Bankers Cheque No.843983 dated 09.10.2025, drawn in favour of M.R. Padmaja and dispatched to her residential address at Flat No.F-101, Jayam Paradise, Opp. Mythri Hospital, Kamalanagar, Anantapur-515 001 via Speed Post (EN529139367IN) on 10.10.2025.” 6. The above paragraphs would indicate that the Respondent No.1 has prepared a cheque for the consolidated salary of Rs.1500/- per month from the date of her termination up to 31.12.2012. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that after calculating the said sum, it is noticed that the Respondent No.1 has granted additional seven months of salary. In any event, he would submit that Demand Draf has already been obtained for paying the arrears of salary on the basis of Rs.1500/- consolidated pay for 141 months amounting to Rs.2,11,500/-. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 would submit that the Bankers Cheque No.843983 dated 09.10.2025 will be handed over to the Petitioner. 7. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is now bedridden. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to 5 direct the Respondent No.1 to cancel the said Demand Draft and have the amount transferred to the Bank Account of the Petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is directed to supply the bank account details to the Respondent No.1 within two days from today. Respondent No.1 is directed to transfer the said amount within five days from the date of supply of the bank account details by the Petitioner. 9. With these observations and directions, this Contempt Case is closed. Needless to state that the liberty granted by this Court to the Petitioner vide Order dated 30.07.2013 is always available subject to all just exceptions. No order as to costs. In view of the compliance, all the Respondents/Contemnors are discharged from this Contempt Case. 10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:20.11.2025 Vns