Willful disobedience of court orders constitutes contempt of court and may result in fines or imprisonment.

ORDER

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. - The present Contempt Case is submitted to punish the respondents under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for willful disobedience and violation of the order of this Court dated 17.08.2023 in Writ Petition No.15809 of 2021.

2. The writ of mandamus is filed to declare the inaction of the 2nd respondent, i.e., Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh Vidya Vidhana Parishad (hereinafter called, 'Vidhana Parishad'), in absorbing the petitioner into Vidhana Parishad, working in the Directorate of Health and as the Directorate of Medical Education despite lapse of period of 14 years since the submission of his option and also considering his case.

3. The respondents in the Writ Petition filed their response and agitated that the petitioner was not absorbed in the Vidhana Parishad, as he has not submitted his option in time and therefore his case was not considered.

4. Demurrer to the contentions raised by the respondents, the petitioner has filed proceedings No.17262/C2/2008 dated 09.11.2013, stating that the Government issued several orders extending the time for absorption of the employees into Vidhana Parishad. Therefore, the contention made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has not submitted the option in time is far from truth and prayed to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner into Vidhana Parishad.

5. This Court, by order dated 17.08.2023, has disposed of the Writ Petition with a positive direction to the respondents to consider for absorption of the petitioner into Vidhana Parishad.

6. As the respondents have not absorbed the petitioner, as directed by this Court, the writ petitioner has filed the present Contempt Case to punish the respondents under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

7. On receiving notices, the 2nd respondent has filed response to the Contempt Case in the following manner:

(1) The Government has issued proceedings, vide ordinance No.8 of 2008 and G.O.Ms.No.316 dated 25.08.2008 calling for options duly informing that all interested employees working under the control of Directorate of Health and Directorate of Medical Education into Vidhana Parishad. The petitioner by name Dr. K.Shiva Nagi Reddy has not submitted his option during that time.

(2) Subsequently, the Government has issued orders, vide G.O.Ms.No.124 dated 13.10.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 20.07.2018 transferring 122 + 5 hospitals from the administrative control of the Director of Public Health to Commissioner, Vidhana Parishad and as per the policy decision of the Government, options were called for from the employees working in the above 127 hospitals and all the specialist doctors working in DSH facilities (formerly APVVP) as on 01.04.2018. Thus, the petitioner has not worked in 127 hospitals and has not been absorbed into Vidhana Parishad and the case of the petitioner was examined in detail and was rejected for absorption by way of speaking order dated 06.12.2023 and the same was communicated to the petitioner.

(3) While the employee/Director who worked in 127 hospitals were absorbed into Vidhana Parishad, the petitioner was placed under suspension under Section 8 of the A.P.Civil Servies (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, for involving in a criminal case, as such, the petitioner was not absorbed into Vidhana Parishad.

(4) Along with the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent has filed speaking order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for absorption into Vidhana Parishad, vide proceedings dated 06.12.2023. The relevant portion of the said speaking order is hereby extracted as follows:

"Government orders issued vide G.O.Ms.No.48, HM&FW(C2) Department, dated 16.02.2010 were not materialized and could not be implemented.

Government permitted to absorb the services of all the willing and eligible employees of 127 hospitals along the services of all the specialist doctors already working in terms conditions of Deputation on foreign Servic