IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 'n Sfif)!]: PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1168 OF 2012 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 summon the Respondents to this court and punish them for Contempt of Court for intentionally violating the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.3102 of 2003 dated 27-12-2010. Between: Smt. G.Sandhya Mani, W/o late G.D. Ajit Roy, House wife. Permanent Add: C/o Sri P.Venu, 302, Krushi Sai Residency, 4th Cross, Old Madras Road, Pai lay out, Bengaluru - 560016 Presently C/o Dhirendar Prasad, 9-4-86/28/1 A, II Floor, Salarjung Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad - 500 008. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Sri Rakesh Sharma, Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Hyderabad. Sri P.Appa Rao, Asst. General Manager Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity Department Local Head Office, Bank Street, Hyderabad - 500 195 2. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the PetitioneriSRI. T VIDYA RANI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI E MADAN MOHAN RAO The Court made the following: ' • ^PHC()10M6102012 I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1168/2012 Between: 1.SMT. G.SANDHYA MANI„ W/0 LATE G.D.AJIT ROY, HOUSE WIFE, 302, KRUSHI SAI RESIDENCY, 4TH CROSS, OLD MADRAS ROAD, PAI LAY OUT, BENGALURU - 560016 PRESENTLY C/0 DHIRENDAR PRASAD, 9-4- 86/28/1 A, II FLOOR, SALARJUNG COLONY, HYDERABAD - 500 008. PERMANENT ADD: C/0 SRI P.VENU MEHDIPATNAM, ...PETITIONER AND 1.SRI RAKESH SHARMA, CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, BANK STREET, HYDERABAD. 2.SRI P APPA RAO, ASST. GENERAL MANAGER PENSION, PROVIDENT FUND AND GRATUITY DEPARTMENT LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, BANK STREET, HYDERABAD - 500 195 ...CONTEMNOR(S): 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 summon the Respondents to this Honble court and punish them for Contempt of Court for intentionally violating the orders of this Honble Court passed in W.P.No.3102 of 2003 dated 27-12-2010 and Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.T VIDYA RANI pass 2 o Counsel for the Contemnor{S): 1. E MADAN MOHAN RAO The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Ms T.Vidya Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner. The above contempt case is filed complaining about the non implementation of the order dated 27.12.2010 in W.P.No.3102 of 2003. The petitioner filed the above writ petition to direct the respondents to pay the total salary and emoluments during the period of suspension of the petitioner’s husband and to settle the family pension P.F. The said writ petition was allowed on 27.12.2010. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: 2. 3. 4. “For the foregoing reasons the Writ Petition is allowed, and the 1® respondent is directed to release the death-cum-retirement benefits to the petitioner and other family members of late G. David Ajit Roy, and pay the difference of wages for the period during which the employee was under suspension till his death. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default, the amount payable to the petitioner and her other family members shall carry interest at 9% per annum, from 01.01.1998 i.e., the date of death of the employee, till the date of payment. The petitioner shall attend the office of the 1®‘ respondent along with her children on the date intimated to her, for receiving the benefits.” In the affidavit filed in support of the above contempt case was pleaded that the petitioner made several representations. Despite the order passed by this Court, the 1®* respondent failed to settle the dues. The 1®^ respondent, on his arrival the dues payable to the petitioner’s husband and communicated to thw'Shandrayangutta Branch. The said branch issued a bankers' cheque to 5. the petitioner of Rs.2,79,481/- dated 31.03.2011. The petitioner also received Rs.58,519/- by way of DD and a sum of Rs.17,628/- on 16.12.2011. The respondent paid Rs.3,41,628/- in total. The respondents failed to furnish the calculation sheet. A reply/counter was filed by the 2"^ respondent. In para-8 of the reply, it was specifically mentioned regarding payment of amounts on different heads to a sum of Rs.8,44,851/- as on 01.09.2012 to the petitioner, and the endorsement by the petitioner about receipt of the same. The particulars of the payment have been mentioned in the tabular form. Along with the counter affidavit, the annexures were also filed. No reply was filed controverting the averments in the counter-affidavit. 6. While disposing of the writ petition, the Court directed the respondents to release both the retirement benefits and pay the difference in wages during suspension till date. Two months were fixed and failure to pay, the Court directed the respondents to pay interest. In para-8 of the counter-affidavit, the table reflects the payment of the difference in amounts to the petitioner. Thus, as seen from averments in para-8 of the counter-affidavit, the order dated 21.06.2011 in the above writ petition has been complied with. This court doesn’t find any violation of the order. Accordingly, the contempt dismissed. No costs. 7. 8. case IS As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. \ Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Sri Rakesh Sharma, Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Hyderabad. 2. Sri P. Appa Rao, Asst. General Manager Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity Department Local Head Office, Bank Street, Hyderabad - 500 195 3. OneCCto SRI. T VIDYA RANI Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CG to SRI. E MADAN MOHAN RAO Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies Pmg nm HIGH COURT DATED:04/03/2025 ORDER CC.No.1168of2012 ^0 6 SEP 2025 i ntSectioflXi Co? DISMISSING THE CONTEMPT CASE