1 APHC010757512016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2408/2016 Between: 1. TOMPALA TRINADHAM, SRIKAKULAM DIST., S/O. LATE ATCHAYYA, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS HOSTEL STAFF, R/O. GULLA SEETHARAMPURAM VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. AJEYA KALLAM I A S GUNTUR DIST AND 2 OTHERS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE AND PLANNING, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 500 022. 2. SRI M RAMA RAO IAS, DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SANKSHEMA BHAVAN, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD - 500 001 AND ALSO AT SW GIRLS HOSTEL, NEAR PRAKASHNAGAR POLICE STATION, PAIKAPPURAM, VIJAYAWADA. 3. K S K V V R DHANUNJAYA RAO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (SOCIAL WELFARE), COLLECTORATE, SRIKAKULAM, - 532 001. 4. S S RAVATH, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 500022. 5. RAVICHANDRA, SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY FAC, FINANCE AND PLANNING, A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2 500022. LEAVE GRANTED AND RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE HONORBLE COURT ORDER DTD.19.01.2018 IN IA NO.2/2017 - APPL.NO.1203 OF 2017 IN CC NO.2408 OF 2016 ...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 initiate the Contempt proceedings against the respondents and punish them suitably u/s 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for their deliberate and willful disobedience of the order dt.29.1.2016 passed in writ petition No.2268 of 2016 by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court consisting of their Lordships The Hon'ble Sri Justice G.Chandraiah and The Hon'ble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(APPL 1139 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to dispense with the petitioner's personal appearance on 08-12-2017 in the above said CC NO.2408/2016 in W.P.No.2268/2016 in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(APPL 1203 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to grant leave to the petitioner to implead respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein as respondent Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.2408/2016 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA 2. P VEERRAJU 3. S PRANATHI 3 The Court made the following: ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents have flouted the direction given by the High Court in W.P.No.2268 of 2016 for regularization of the service of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering his representation. 2. Heard learned counsel for the contempt petitioner, Sri P.Veerraju, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-Principal Secretary for Finance and Planning, Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharlakota, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 and Ms.S.Pranathi, Special Government Pleader for the 5th respondent-Special Chief Secretary for Finance and Planning. 3. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a cook in a Government Boys Hostel in Srikakulam District on 11.09.1987 on daily wage basis. It is pleaded by him that when his services were terminated without notice and without paying any compensation, that he has approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam by way of filing I.D.No.24 of 1995. The Labour Court passed an award dated 23.09.1998 directing the management to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity of service. The writ petition filed by the management against the said order in W.P.Nno.22414 of 1999 was disposed of by a common order dated 30.12.2008 modifying the award passed by the Labour Court only to the extent of limiting the back wages of 50%. The petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.2099 of 2015 seeking regularization of his service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994. The Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. Therefore, he preferred W.P.No.2268 of 2016 against the said order. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner for 4 regularization of his service as per G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 4. Now, alleging that the respondents did not consider his representation to regularize his services, as directed by the High Court in the above writ petition, the present contempt case has been filed. 5. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No.5, it is stated that the proposal sent by the Social Welfare Department has been returned with some remarks. Therefore, this Court by order dated 25.02.2026 ordered for production of the record to examine the same. Pursuant to the said direction, the record is produced today before the Court by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent. As can be seen from the proceedings of the Social Welfare Department dated 11.02.2018, it is very much evident that the representation submitted by the petitioner has been in fact considered by the respondents and as it is found that the petitioner did not complete the service of continuous period of five years on or before 25.11.1983 for regularization of his service in substantive vacancy, his services are not regularized. 6. Therefore, from the record which is now produced, it is now evident that the representation of the petitioner was in fact considered and it was rejected as he did not complete the service of continuous period of five years as daily wage worker. Therefore, it cannot be said that the direction issued by this Court to consider his representation is flouted and violated. 7. If at all, the contempt petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he has to challenge the validity of the same before the appropriate forum. But, no case for contempt is made out from the facts of the case. 5 8. Therefore, the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions including I.A.No.1 of 2017, if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 13.03.2026 ARR 6 149 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2408/2016 Date: 13.03.2026 ARR