IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced that disobedience of a court order, regardless of the respondent's interpretation, constitutes contempt and is punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act.

ORDER :

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.

1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining the alleged willful disobedience in implementing the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3894 of 2023.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Typist on 15.06.1999 in the Board of Intermediate Education. Subsequently, she was promoted as Senior Assistant, Superintendent, later as Administrative Officer and retired on 31.08.2022. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.147 Finance (HRM-IV) Department dated 30.06.2014 enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years due to the enactment of A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Amendment Act, 2014. Further, the State Government of Andhra Pradesh also issued G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR-IV FR&LR) Department dated 31.01.2022 enhancing the age of superannuation of government employees from 60 to 62 years with effect from 01.01.2022. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted representation dated 09.12.2022 to the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education to continue her in service till attaining the age of superannuation of 62 years, by implementing G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR IV FR & LR) Department dated 31.01.2022. Since, Respondent No.3 did not consider the representation of the petitioner, she preferred W.P.No.3894 of 2023 before this Court.

4. Upon hearing both the parties, this Court passed an interim direction in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.3894 of 2023 dated 16.02.2023 which reads as follows :

“Heard both sides.

This Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.33818 of 2022, has granted interim orders directing the respondents therein to continue the petitioners therein in service in view of the G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022.

In view of the said orders, this Court is inclined to pass interim orders directing the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner herein till she attains the age of superannuation of 62 years.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, after obtaining order from this Court, the petitioner submitted representation along with order copy to Respondent No.3. But, Respondent No.3 did not implement the orders of this Court inspite of receiving the copy of the order of this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Respondent Nos.1 & 3 being aware about the direction issued by this Court, obviously for reasons best known to them, did not implement the order of this Court which amounts to contempt, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and that the respondent is liable for punishment as per Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act and requested to punish them in accordance with law.

7. Inspite of the matter undergoing number of adjournments for filing counter affidavit, Respondent No.1 neither filed counter affidavit nor preferred any petition for discharge himself as party respondent from the contempt proceedings.

8. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit, wherein, in Paragraph No.5, it is stated that, the petitioner is working under the administrative control of Respondent No.3 which is under the direct administrative control of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is not having the competency, authority, jurisdiction against the petitioner to take necessary action upon the interim orders dated 16.02.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.3894 of 2023. It is further stated that, Respondent No.3 is the answering respondent. Since, Respondent No.2 is not the proper party and competent authority having jurisdiction for implementation of the orders of this Court, as such, he prayed that he should be discharged from the contempt proceedings. He further prayed that, since there is no deliberate or intentional disobedience on the part of Respondent No.2, requested to close the contempt proceedings against him.

9. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit stating that, the