APHC010105802023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3492] FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1566/2023 Between: 1. G.PHANI RAJ KUMAR, S/ O.VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/ O.KALAYAKAGOLLU VILLAGE, BUCHIREDDIPALEM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SMT V ROJ MARY, DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (POSTAL), UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, AT HYDERABAD-500 001, NOW SHIFTED TO A.P. CIRCLE, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA- 520013 KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. SRI D V S R MURTHY, POST MASTER GENERAL, GANDHINAGAR, VIJAYAWADA REGION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-520 003. 3. SRI D RAMANAIAH, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PRAKASAM DIVISION, ONGOLE-523 001. 4. SRI DR ABHINAV WALIA, CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, DAK SADAN, AT ABIDS, HYDERABAD - 500001 NOW SHIFTED TO A.P. CIRCLE, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA-520013 KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...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 2 be pleased to may be pleased to commit the respondents for Contempt of Lawful authorities of this Honourable Court in willfully disobeying the orders of this Honourable Court in W.P.No. 16034 of 2020, dt. 09-09-2020 and punish them suitably and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S GOPAL RAO Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. Pasala Ponna Rao, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 3 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The father of the petitioner herein, who was working in the Postal Department, had retired, on medical invalidation grounds vide memo dated 09.01.2002. The father of the petitioner passed away on 09.05.2002. The petitioner, thereupon, had moved an application for appointment, on compassionate grounds, on account of the medical invalidation and demise of his father. As this application was not being considered, the petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, by way of O.A.No.810 of 2015, which was disposed of, directing the respondents therein to examine the request of the petitioner as per the rules. In compliance with the said directions, the respondents considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same, by way of an order, dated 28.12.2015. 2. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, by way of O.A.No.311 of 2016, which came to be dismissed on 28.10.2016. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner had approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.5437 of 2017, which came to be allowed, on 23.04.2018. The petitioner had also filed C.C.No.2246 of 2018, for non- compliance of the directions of the erstwhile High Court passed in W.P.No.5437 of 2017. This Contempt Case came to be dismissed. Subsequent to these developments, the respondents again rejected the claim of the petitioner on 24.08.2018. Aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, by way of OA/00248/2019. In the said OA, the respondents had raised two grounds for rejecting the application of the petitioner. Firstly, the father of the petitioner had crossed the age of 55 years before he was medical invalided and had passed away and that the petitioner was not eligible on account of his father passing the age of 55 years. Secondly, the petitioner could not be accommodated on account of the limited number of vacancies. The Tribunal rejected the first contention on 4 the ground that the said contention was never raised in the earlier rounds of litigation. The Tribunal neither approved nor rejected the second ground of the restricted number of vacancies being available. However, the Tribunal set aside the order of rejection, dated 25.08.2018, and directed the respondents to again consider the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said Order, the respondents have approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.16034 of 2020, which came to be dismissed by an Order, dated 09.09.2020, with a further direction to the respondents to carry out the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in the impugned order, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the Order. 3. The respondents again rejected the application of the petitioner by proceedings, dated 26.04.2022. In these proceedings, the respondents rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that only 5% of vacancies had been reserved for compassionate appointment and all the said 5% of vacancies have already been filled up by persons who were in far worse conditions. 4. The petitioner has now moved the present Contempt Case on the ground that the rejection of the application of the petitioner was in willful disobedience of the directions of the Court. 5. Sri A. Adinarayana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S. Gopal Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that there is a willful disobedience of the Orders of the Court, dated 09.09.2020, inasmuch as the contention of lack of available vacancies had already been raised and had been rejected in the earlier rounds of litigation. He would also contend that the respondents could not have raised this ground at all and have deliberately raised this ground only to ensure that the petitioner does not get the benefit of the Orders of the Court. 6. Sri Challa Dhananjaya, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents would contend that the issue of a limited number of vacancies had been raised in the earlier rounds of litigation and 5 had not been answered and had been left open. He would further submit that the petitioner, after the orders of this Court, dated 09.09.2020, had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, in contempt proceedings, by way of CP/020/00048/2020 in OA/00248/2019 and the same came to be closed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, by way of an Order dated 27.08.2021, after noticing the fact that the petitioner could not be accommodated, on account of fact that only 5% of vacancies are meant for compassionate appointment and no vacancies were available. The Tribunal while closing the said application, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the next meeting of the Circle Relaxation Committee. 7. We are in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that the question of limited vacancies can be taken into account by the respondents while deciding the application of the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Contempt Case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to assail the Order of rejection, dated 26.04.2022, in an appropriate forum, if so advised. 9. It is also stated that there was a subsequent order of rejection, dated 03.01.2024. It would be open to the petitioner to assail this rejection order, dated 03.01.2024, if so advised. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. ____________________ K. SURESH REDDY, J. Dated: 12.09.2025 BSM 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1566/2023 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 12.09.2025 BSM