APHC010350452023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3893/2023 Between: 1. POTLURI KRISHNA MOHAN, S/O. LATE POTLURI SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC . RETD. EMPLOYEE, SPAV R/O. D.NO. 52-3-2A/4 A401, ELITE-LX NEXT TO ST. JOHNS SCHOOL, NTR COLONY, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA-520008, NTR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI K S SANJAY MURTHY, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC . SECRETARY TO THE UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI. 2. PROF DR RAMESH SRIKONDA, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC. DIRECTOR, SCHOOL PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURE (SPAV) NEAR RANIE3H CARDIAC HOSPITAL SY.NO 4/4, ITI ROAD, VIJAYAWADA -520008 ANDHRA PRADESH. ...CONTEMNOR(S): The court made the following ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by this Court in I.A. No.1 of 2022 in W.P. No.37586 of 2022, dated 21.11.2022, has not been complied with in its true letter and spirit. Further submits that, despite the petitioner submitted representations to the 2nd respondent on 21.11.2022 and subsequently to the Chairman and Members of the Board of Governors on 28.03.2023, the 2nd respondent, in contravention of the orders of this Court as well as the letter issued by the Department of Higher Education, Government of India, dated 20.03.2023, issued proceedings dated 02.05.2023 stating that no claims of the petitioner were pending with the Institute. According to the learned counsel, the said action of the respondents is amounts to disobedience of the orders of this Court. He further submits that the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 11.05.2023 to the respondents requesting for implementation of the orders of this Court and communication of the same. However, the 2nd respondent failed to consider the said notice and representations, which, according to the petitioner is amounts to intentional and willful disobedience of the order of this Court, thereby the 2nd respondent is liable for contempt proceedings under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as under:- “It is submitted that the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.37586 of 2022 claiming his benefits on retirement and this Hon'ble Court passed an Order dated 21.11.2022 directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation seeking certain remedies. The said direction was given to the 1st respondent only and not to the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the 1st respondent having consulted the Ministry of DOPT, directed this Institute which is an autonomous body to take decisions at our end. Copies of Office Memorandums dated 07.02.2023 and 16.12.2022 issued by Department of Higher Education, Government of India are filed herewith. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Board of Governors held on 31.03.2023 and the Board of Governors in principle agreed to adopt the Provisions of Gratuity Act and released the benefits. Copy of Agenda and notes of 37th Meeting of Board of Governors held on 31.03.2023 is filed herewith. The Governing Council Minutes have to be ratified in the subsequent Governing Council meeting and the subsequent Board of Governors meeting was held on 21.10.2023. Meanwhile, when the Contempt Case was filed by the petitioner herein, on the advice of Legal Counsel, I have taken decision subject to ratification by the Governing Council and paid Rs.4,91,581/- vide cheque bearing No.390718 dated 11.10.2023 representing gratuity and also an amount of Rs.11,19,870/- vide cheque bearing No.390723 dated 17.10.2023 representing Earned Leave Encashment of Leave. Both the amounts have been credited to the Account of the petitioner herein. Copies of Letters dated 11.10.2023 and 11.10.2023 with above mentioned cheques are filed herewith”. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the order of this Court has been complied with strictly in accordance with its terms and that the delay, if any, was occasioned due to inter-ministerial consultations, which were beyond the control of the 2nd respondent. It is asserted that there was no willful or deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court. An unconditional apology has also been tendered by the 2nd respondent for the delay caused. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record to determine whether there was any willful disobedience or violation of the order dated 21.11.2022. For proper appreciation, the relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: “In view of the submissions made by both the counsel, there shall be an interim direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the review representation dated 14.12.2021 submitted by the petitioner within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after consultation with the DoPT in reference to Circular No.F.No.6- 3/2015, FTS No.89197 and also as per Clause (1) of Section 4 regarding payment of gratuity.” 6. On a careful perusal of the above order and the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is evident that the claim of the petitioner relating to the qualifying service of five (05) years is for entitlement of retired benefits was duly considered. The gratuity, earned leave encashment at applicable rate of interest were paid to the petitioner in accordance with the service rules governing to the School of Planning and Architecture, Vijayawada, and the relevant statutory provisions. Therefore, the review representation dated 14.12.2021 stands addressed in compliance with the terms of direction of this Court. Though there was some delay in implementation, the same has been satisfactorily explained in the counter affidavit as having occurred due to inter-departmental correspondence and consultations among the Ministry of Finance, Department of Personnel and Training, and the Department of Higher Education, Government of India. Such delay cannot be attributed to any mala fide intention or deliberate defiance on the part of the 2nd respondent. Further, the 2nd respondent has categorically tendered an unconditional apology for the delay in implementation of the order of this Court. 7. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to accept the apology and hold that there was no intentional or willful disobedience of the order of this Court. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 06.11.2025 kkllkk 317 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No.3893 of 2023 06.11.2025 kkllkk 324 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.32606 of 2025 24.11.2025 kkllkk