APHC010687252022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Contempt Case No: 6190/2022 Between: G.Ayyavaraiah, S/o. Late Subbaiah, Aged about 71 years, R/o.8-3-214-8, Srinivasa Colony, Hyderabad. …Petitioner AND 1. Sri M.Rakesh kashyap, Chairman, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Dhobi Ghat Road, P.B No.65, Near Mariyapuram church, Opp:Officers Club, Kadapa – 516001 2. Sri Pramod Kumar Reddy, Chairman, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, R/o. D.No.5-37-234, 4th Floor, Raghu Mansion, 4/1, Brodipet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh – 522002 ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Sodum Anvesha Counsel for the Contemnor: Smt. V Uma Devi The Court made the following Order: I.A No.1 of 2025 (On being mentioned) The contempt case is filed alleging non-implementation of the order dated 06.05.2022 passed in W.P No.34888 of 2021. 2. A learned Judge vide the said orders allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner by setting aside the proceedings dated 22.07.2011 issued by the respondent-Bank. A direction was also issued to the bank to pay gratuity to NJS,J I.A No.1 of 2025 in C.C No.6190 of 2022 2 the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, within a period of eight (08) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is not in dispute that the said order attained finality. 3. Initially, in the contempt case, the learned Judge after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel on both sides, disposed of the same vide order dated 24.01.2025, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: “10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for interest on delayed payment of gratuity. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Contempt Case, directing the respondent-bank to pay the interest amount of 8% per annum from the due date of actual payment to till the date of payment, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4. Against the said order, the respondents herein filed Letter Patent Appeal No.1 of 2025 and the Hon’ble Division Bench vide orders dated 16.10.2025, allowed the same, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- “10. … (i) The order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.01.2025 in C.C.No.6190 of 2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Contempt Court for adjudication in accordance with law. 11. It is made it clear that we are not expressing any opinion about the entitlement of the interest to the writ petitioner as per the provisions of the Gratuity Act.” 5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application in I.A No.1 of 2025 for listing the matter under the caption “For Being Mentioned”. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A., a plea was taken to the effect that as per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act and Notification issued by the Central Government, interest @ 10% per annum for the delayed payments has to be granted. Be that as it may. NJS,J I.A No.1 of 2025 in C.C No.6190 of 2022 3 6. At the time of considering the I.A. along with the Contempt Case, Smt. V Uma Devi, learned counsel for the respondent appearing through online, while drawing the attention of this Court to the Memo dated 03.02.2026 submits that the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Contempt Case directing payment of gratuity with interest @ 8% per annum was complied with and a Demand Draft dated 31.01.2026 for an amount of Rs.7,25,365/- is made ready. She submits that, in view of the compliance of the orders passed in the Contempt Case, the same may be closed, that infact, I.A. is not maintainable. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is ready to accept the said amount, however, without prejudice to his right to claim interest @ 10% per annum, as per the statute. She received the Demand Draft dated 31.01.2026 for an amount of Rs.7,25,365/- handed over on behalf of the Bank. 8. Keeping in view the limited jurisdiction in the Contempt Case, this Court, though in the application i.e., I.A No.1 of 2026, the petitioner claimed interest @ 10% per annum, is not inclined to examine the petitioner’s entitlement to the said rate of interest. 9. Therefore, in view of the compliance of the order dated 24.01.2025, this Court is inclined to close the present Interlocutory Application. 10. Accordingly, I.A No.1 of 2025 is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek recourse to law with regard to the differential rate of interest, in accordance with law. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:12.02.2026 Ksj