The government's compliance with the rules and the communication of the court order's implementation were crucial in the court's decision to close the contempt case.

ORDER:

1. This Contempt case has been filed to punish the contemnor/respondent under the provisions of Contempt of courts Act 1971 for violation of the orders and for not implementing the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 2549 of 2020 dated 30.06.2022.

2. Heard Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondent.

3. This Court, vide order, dated 30.06.2022, in W.P. No. 2549 of 2020, has disposed of the writ petition. The operative portion of the same, as under:

“......Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the proceedings vide R.O.C. No. 6341(2)/2019 (C.Sec), dated 28.11.2019 cancelling the appointment order of the petitioner vide R.O.C. No. 3/2019/C(2), dated 01.06.2019 issued by the respondent No. 3. Further, the respondent No. 3 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules, by taking into consideration the material produced by the petitioner, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though this Court directed the respondent No. 3 i.e. the contemnor/respondent herein, he deliberately ignored the orders to resume the petitioner into duties, and hence, the respondent deliberately, wilfully disobeying the orders of this court, which amounts to contempt. Hence, learned counsel prayed to pass appropriate orders.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent filed Reply affidavit on behalf of the respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that while Sri Edia Venkanna, who is the father of the petitioner working as Village Revenue Assistant, Gopalapuram died on 5.11.2015 while in service. As per orders issued by the Government in Rule-8(3) in G.O.Ms. No. 531 Rev. (VO) Dept. dated 01.04.2005 that the spouse/dependent children of a Village Servant who dies in harness before attaining the age of 60 years may be appointed as village Servants. But, the deceased Edida Venkanna was died at the age of 68 years as his date of birth was entered in his Service Register as 35 years by year 1982, and no compassionate appointment will be applicable.

6. As per G.O.Ms. No. 612 GA (Ser-A) Dept., dated 30.10.1991 “the adopted son or daughter of the deceased government Servant may be considered for appointment if the adoption had taken place legally at least five (5) years prior to the date of demise of the Government Servant.” But the deceased did not adopt the petitioner legally and the petitioner has not been adopted legally is not eligible for compassionate appointment. Thus, the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, was rejected, vide Roc. No. 59/2013/A, dated 04.04.2017. It is further stated that as per Rule-42 Power of Mandal Revenue Officer to punish village servants: The Mandal Revenue Officer or any superior authority may suo motu or on a complaint conduct an enquiry and suspend, remove or dismiss any Village Servant for misconduct or negligence of duty in capacity or for no residence in the village or for conviction in a criminal case which in his opinion disqualifies him from holding the office or for any other sufficient cause. But in the instant case, as the question of punish the village servant i.e. the petitioner herein does not arise as the entire appointment proceedings as VRA of the petitioner has been cancelled as an irregular appointment on administrative grounds only, but not any punishment measure as per the Rules in force. After due verification of the records examined the available material of documents produced by the petitioner and A.P. Village Revenue Assistant Rules, this respondent has concluded that the appointment of the petitioner vide Roc. No. 3/2019/C of the then Tahsildar, Gopalapuram is contrary to the G.O.Ms. No. 612 GA (Ser-A