Prompt compliance with court orders, especially by senior government officials, is essential to uphold the rule of law and ensure the effectiveness of judicial decisions.

ORDER :

This Contempt Case is filed under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents/ contemnors for Contempt of Court for willful and deliberate disobedience in not comply the orders passed by this Court dated 18.10.2022 in W.P.No.33879 of 2022, which reads as follows :

“5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and without touching the merits of the case, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations dated 24.08.2022 and 10.10.2022 of the petitioner for encashment of earned leave for 300 days and other pensionary benefits, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.”

2. Heard Mr. Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ contemnors.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents failed to comply with the orders of this Court willfully 2nd and deliberately, despite of legal notice issued to the respondent on 30.12.2022 and informed that the 2nd respondent sought clarification from the 1st respondent is highly illegal and arbitrary and placed on record the letter dated 24.02.2023 addressed by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent wherein it was stated as follows :

“In view of the above it is here by directed to the RDO, Nandyal who is competent authority to sanction the enactment of earned leave of 300 days and payment of other pensionary benefits to the individual i.e. Sri K. Upendra Achari, Senior Assistant (Retd.,) O/o Sub-Collector, Nandyal as requested in the reference 8th cited as per The Revised Andhra Pradesh Pension Rules 1980. The Andhra Pradesh leave Rules 1933, as per the G.O.Ms.No.232, Finance (FR-1), Dept, Dt.16.09.2005 and as per The Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules F.R.54-A.

Hence it is to inform that there is no need of any further clarification/ specific orders from this office.”

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is specific clarification from the 1st respondent as cited supra, the 2nd respondent failed to implement the orders of this Court, which amounts to contempt of court.

4. During hearing learned counsel for the respondents placed on record the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 19.04.2023, which reads as follows :

“In this case, there is an appeal petition pending before the Government of Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, Memo No. 11021/127/CV.2/2018, dated 01.12.2020 regarding the Cancellation of the Kammara (ST) Caste Certificate of the petitioner against the orders of DLSC i.e. Collector, Kurnool vide Proceedings No. Rc.C6.531/M/2007 dated 09.04.2020. And no orders received from Government or from the Collector, Kurnool for regularization of break period of service i.e. from 13.08.2019 to 20.06.2021.

The petitioner has already been informed vide reference 4th cited, through his counsel through register post receipt no. RN 457641395IN, Dt: 23.01.2023 as the specific orders are requested from the competent authority for taking necessary action on the representations of the petitioner.

Hence unless Service Regularization Orders by the competent authority is obtained and produced by the petitioner, the request of the petitioner for encashment of earned leave for 300 days and other pensionary benefits is hereby rejected”.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the proceedings dated 19.04.2023, which referred supra, it is very clear that unless service regularization orders by the competent authority is obtained and produced by the petitioner, the request of the petitioner for encashment of earned leave for 300 days and other pensionary benefits was rejected by the 2nd respondent. Therefore question of disobeying the orders of this Court does not arise and requested to close the Contempt Case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this Court wit