APHC010478502024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4296/2024 Between: 1. K MALLIKARJUNA, S/O LATE MALAKONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR (INCHARGE BILL COLLECTOR), KAVALI MUNICIPALITY, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SMT Y SRILAKSHMI IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MA AND UD DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP., 2. SHRI ANIL SINGHAL IAS, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP. 3. SRI N HARINARAYANAN IAS, COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VADDESWARAM, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP. 4. SRI G SRAVANKUMAR, KAVALI MUNICIPALITY, KAVALI, NELLORE DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER. ...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 and punish them for will 2 full disobedience of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.36775/2022 dt. 14.11.2022 passed by Sri Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. G RAJU 2. K RAGHAVA CHARYULU 3. P C REDDY The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO:4296 OF 2024 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 14.11.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.36775 of 2022. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 14.11.2022 passed an interim direction in W.P.No.36775 of 2022, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner with reference to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.6558/2016, dated 03.03.2016. He further submits that even after receipt of a copy of this order, the respondent authorities neither considered the candidature of the petitioner for regularization as per law nor issued any proceedings so far. Hence, the present contempt case. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents furnished proceedings dated 28.09.2024 issued by respondent No.4, wherein, it is stated that after receipt of the interim orders of this Court, the representation dated 30.08.2024 submitted by the petitioner for regularization of his service was considered and a speaking order dated 28.09.2024 was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for regularisation as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. he further 4 submits that the said impugned speaking order came to be passed much prior to the present contempt case. As such, the orders of this Court are complied with and requested to close the contempt case. 5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that after receipt of the interim orders of this Court, the respondent No.4 herein passed a speaking order dated 28.09.2024, considering the interim direction as well as the orders referred in the interim direction dated 03.03.2016, wherein, the claim of the petitioner for regularization of services was rejected. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection order dated 28.09.2024 was passed by Respondent No.4, who is not the competent authority to reject the claim of the petitioner, and that any claim relating to the regularization of services of an employee ought to be dealt with by Respondent No.1/State, which is the competent authority, and therefore, the rejection order is passed without jurisdiction is not valid and unsustainable. As such, the further contention of the petitioner that the respondents violated the orders passed by this Court is also not valid and unsustainable for the reason, the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition itself is seeking for consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner to the respondents who were enumerated as respondents as per cause title of the writ petition. Therefore, respondent No.4 is one among the respondents, who considered and passed orders. In fact, for considering the request of the petitioner and for regularization of services of the petitioner, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 might be the competent authorities, but as long as the 5 facts were not inconsonance with the G.O.Ms.No.212, the claim of the petitioner was rejected and the same can be informed by any of the respondents since they were made as party respondents. In view of the same, there is no violation on part of the respondents in implementing the orders of this Court. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, since the respondent No.4 passed a speaking order dated 28.09.2024, in compliance of the directions of this Court dated 14.11.2022, the orders of this Court are complied with, no further orders are necessary. 7. Accordingly, the present contempt case is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed further and challenge the speaking order by initiating separate proceedings, for further claim, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 05.02.2026 BSP 6 19 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No.4296 of 2024 05.02.2026 BSP