G. Rohini, J.

This appeal is filed under Clause-15 of Letters Patent aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case No.1807 of 2011.

We have heard Sri V. Venugopal Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

As could be seen from the material available on record, the respondent herein, who was working as a Senior Mechanic in Sri Kalahasteeswara Institute of Technology, Sri Kalahasti, filed W.P.No.20987 of 2007 aggrieved by termination of his services by proceedings dated 9.9.2007. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge by order dated 2.9.2010 while setting aside the impugned proceedings disposed of the writ petition directing reinstatement of the writ petitioner/respondent herein with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits including increments, arrears of salary, etc., however imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. W.A.No.938 of 2011 preferred by the appellants herein was dismissed by judgment 15.11.2011.

Thereafter, the writ petitioner/respondent herein filed Contempt Case No.1807 of 2011 with a prayer to punish the respondents in the writ petition for flouting the order in WP.No.20987 of 2007 as confirmed in the Writ Appeal.

The appellants herein filed counter-affidavit stating that the writ petitioner was reinstated as per the interim directions even before disposal of the writ petition and thereafter the difference of wages and arrears payable were also paid to him in compliance with the order in W.P.No.20987 of 2007.

However it was contended on behalf of the petitioner in the contempt case that he was denied regularization of his services on par with the other non-teaching staff including the contract workers whose services were regularized w.e.f. 1.2.2006. It was also pleaded that the A.P. Revised Pay Scales, 2005 have been implemented to all the regular non-teaching staff members and all other regular technicians qualified with Diploma and ITI in their respective Departments and they are drawing Basic pay of Rs.6,845/-in the pay scale of Rs.6195-170-13945 and that the petitioner also should have been placed in the said pay scale on par with other regular non-teaching staff members. Having accepted the petitioner’s claim, the learned Single Judge held that the stand taken in the counter-affidavit that the respondents had already implemented the order in W.P.No.20987 of 2007 was not correct and accordingly closed the Contempt Case with directions to pass consequential orders and pay arrears to the petitioner therein on par with his similarly placed employees within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. It was also made clear that the petitioner was entitled for regularization on par with other contract workers whose services were previously regularized by the first respondent observing that once termination is set aside an employee will be entitled to all the consequential benefits.

Aggrieved by the above said directions issued by the learned Single Judge while closing the contempt case, this Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the respondents in the writ petition/contempt case.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner raised an objection as to the maintainability of the appeal contending that as the learned Single Judge had merely clarified the purport of the order passed in W.P.No.20987 of 2007 and no fresh directions were issued, the appellant cannot maintain the present writ appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.), SRBC, NANDYAL v. N. VASUDEVARAO (2004 (1) An.W.R. 418).

The law in this regard is well-settled. Under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, an appeal lies only