The entitlement to full pay and allowances following reinstatement is subject to the decision of the competent authority, and willful disobedience requires a deliberate and intentional act with a bad purpose or without justifiable excuse.

ORDER :

This contempt case has been filed alleging that the respondent has committed contempt by willfully disobeying the order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court.

2. This Court has heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner and Sri V.Maheshwar Reddy appearing for the respondent.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that this Court by a reasoned order quashed G.O.Ms.No.18 GAD (SC.D) Department dated 08.02.2022 by which the petitioner was kept under suspension. The respondent-State questioned the said order by filing a Special Leave Petition and by a final order dated 22.04.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India disposed the Special Leave Petition and refused to interfere with this Courts order. Learned senior counsel therefore submits that on 16.05.2022, the respondent has issued G.O.Ms.No.889 revoking the suspension of the petitioner and reinstated him into service. The petitioner had in the interim period also issued letters dated 29.04.2022, 10.05.2022, 19.05.2022 and 09.06.2022 seeking payment of the pending pay and allowances in view of the final order passed by the Supreme Court. Learned senior counsel points out that despite the same, the respondent has not implemented the order or paid the salary, allowances etc., that are due to him. Therefore, learned senior counsel submits that there is willful and wanton disobedience. Hence, he prays that the Contempt application should be allowed and the respondent should be punished for willful, deliberate and wanton disobedience.

4. In reply to this, Sri V.Maheshwar Reddy appearing for the respondent argues the matter at length. He relies upon the contents of the counter affidavit filed and in particular paras 13-20 and points out that the details of the amounts paid. He points out that it is an admitted fact that these amounts were paid to the petitioner. It is also his contention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not go into the intrinsic merits of the matter and had in fact dismissed the Special Leave Petition on the ground that the period of suspension as per the relevant Rules can only continue for two (2) years. Therefore, he points out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the issue had become academic and dismissed the Special Leave Petition directing the State to ‘notionally’ treat the petitioner as in service from 08.02.2022 along with all emoluments and perks to be extended on that basis. Learned counsel points out that pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, G.O.Ms.No.889 dated 16.05.2022 was issued and the amounts detailed in para 18 of the counter affidavit have been paid to the petitioner. In addition, learned counsel also submits that merely because the petitioner is reinstated into service, he cannot, as a matter of right, claim to be entitled to all the pay and perks etc. He draws the attention of this Court to FR 54-B(1), 54-B(3) and 54-B(4) which are detailed in paras 19 to 22 of the counter affidavit and points out that even after reinstatement, the Government has the discretion and the authority to decide the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant. It is his contention that only when the authority comes to the conclusion that the order of the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant may be entitled to all the pay and allowances. It is his further contention that the suspension could only be regarded as wholly unjustified, if the petitioner is completely and totally exonerated of all his charges. Learned counsel also points out that the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner is at the final stage and only after conclusion of the enquiry, will it be possible to decide if the suspension is justified or not. He points out that the regularization of the suspension period and the decision on the salary etc., to be paid would be decided as per the Rules and at the appropriate time when the enquiry is concluded. In view of this factual and rule