APHC010071562019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 97/2019 Between: A Subramanyam and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Sri Jayarami Reddy and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VENKATESWERLLU KESAMSETTY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. HANUMANTHA RAO BACHINA The Court made the following: ORDER The above contempt case is filed complaining non-implementation of the order dated 07.09.2017 in W.P.No.2608 of 2009. 2. The petitioners filed the above-said writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioners in the cadre of G. Helper, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The said writ petition was disposed of on 07.09.2017 and the operative portion of the order reads thus: “The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization, if necessary by examining the requirement to formulate a scheme as directed by the Supreme Court in Umadevi case. Such exercise shall be completed and decision to this extent shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 4. Complaining non-implementation of the said order, the present contempt case is filed on 11.03.2019. 5. In the affidavit, it was contended that after receiving the order copy, the petitioner made a representation dated 13.12.2018, however, the order was not implemented. The affidavit does not contain the date of receipt of the order copy. 6. A perusal of the order would indicate that the respondents are directed to complete the exercise within 2 months. As seen from the copy of the order filed along with the writ petition, the order was dispatched on 11.10.2017. 7. In respect of the 2nd petitioner, a speaking order was passed vide No.APTDC/Legal/L1/1/2019, dated 25.01.2021. Since a speaking order was passed, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent did not commit any violation of the order passed by this Court. 8. In respect of the 1st petitioner, a reply was filed, and it was contended that the 1st petitioner was relieved from the duties on 30.06.2014 itself on completion of 60 years. 9. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, prescribes a limitation of one year. As observed supra, the writ petition was disposed of on 07.09.2017, the copy of the order was dispatched on 11.10.2017, and the contempt case was filed on 11.03.2019. Thus, apart from compliance, this Court opines that the contempt case is barred by limitation. 10. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is Closed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD