APHC010604692024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] SATURDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4863/2024 Between: 1. J. JAGADEESWARI, W/O.NAGA SRINIVASULU, AGED.53 YEARS, OCC CONDUCTOR IN APSRTC R/O.D.NO.9-187-B, KASTHURI BAI STREET, NEAR SATYANARAYANA SWAMI TEMPLE, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523316. ...PETITIONER AND 1. JUKUNTLA SUNDARA RAO, The Depot Manager, Podili RTC Depot, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...CONTEMNOR Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to punish the Respondents/Contemnors for wilful disobedience of the Interim Orders dated 17.12.2024 of this Hon'ble Court made in WP No.29605 of 2024 in terms of Sections 10 to 12 of the of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THANDAVA YOGESH Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above contempt case was filed, complaining of a violation of the interim order dated 17.12.2024, passed in W.P. No. 29605 of 2024. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. 3. The petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition, challenging the show-cause notice dated 03.12.2024, which was served on the petitioner on 11.12.2024. 4. An interim order was granted by this Court on 17.12.2024, directing the respondent No.4-Depot Manager, Podili RTC Depot, not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the show-cause notice. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it was pleaded that pursuant to the interim order, respondent No.4 issued a removal order on 20.12.2024. 6. Sri Aravala Ram Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 produced the proceedings issued by the District Public Transport Officer vide No.LC/876(14/2024-DPTO(O), dated 24.11.2025, whereby reinstating the petitioner into service. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner joined the duty. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the interim order, the petitioner was removed from service on 20.12.2024 and thereafter, pending the contempt case, the petitioner was reinstated into service by the proceedings dated 24.11.2025. However, the petitioner was not paid the salary for one year. 8. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, the respondent authorities, having realised the mistake committed i.e. removing the petitioner from service, subsequently issued the proceedings dated 24.11.2025, reinstating the petitioner. This Court is of the considered opinion that the said act cannot be declared intentional or deliberate. The writ petition is still pending consideration. 9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Contempt Case is closed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from moving an appropriate application in the pending writ petition regarding salary etc.,. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 20.12.2025 TVN 155 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE No.4863 OF 2024 Date: 20.12.2025 TVN