IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced that compliance with its orders is mandatory, and failure to do so, despite prior admissions, constitutes contempt.

ORDER :

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.

The present Contempt Case is filed to punish the respondent authorities for willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.25032 of 2020 dated 14.09.2022, under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioners herein presented Writ Petition before this Court for Writ of Mandamous to direct the respondents to consider their case for regularization of service forthwith in the category of working Inspector, Attender and Attender respectively.

2. As seen from the averments in the Writ Petition, the present Writ Petition is filed for regularization of service basing upon the orders of this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions. This Court has allowed the Writ Petitions basing upon the admission made in the Counter Affidavit filed in W.P. No.25032 of 2020, where the respondent authorities asserted in the following manner “It is to be stated that the circumstances the case filed in the relevant writ petitions viz W.P. No.27217 of 2017, 1425 of 2019 and 19361 of 2018 upon which the Court passed Orders dated 19.09.2017, 15.10.2019 and 25.09.2019 respectively are not known to these respondents as all the applicants in these Writ Petitions are not pertaining to this division [Water Resources Department]. However, in case the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the present Writ Petition passes such orders, the respondents have no objection to approach the Government and obtain necessary orders for conversion of the applicants from NMR services to W.C. Service duly regularizing their services without following the cutoff date i.e. 25.11.1993 as fixed by the Government through Act No.2 of 1994, and to extend consequential benefits”.

3. Basing on the admission made by the respondents in the Counter in W.P. No.25302 of 2020, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of the services fixing a time of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order in W.P. No.2530 of 2020.

4. For not complying the directions of this Court, the petitioners herein filed the present Contempt Case to punish the respondents for not regularizing the services of the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in the order in W.P. No.25302 a positive direction was given to the respondents. Not implementing the order amounts to willful disobedience of the order. Therefore, the petitioners would contend that the respondents are liable to be punished for the willful disobedience of the order of this Court under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

6. Demurer, counsel appearing for the respondents by name Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy filed reply/counter affidavit and agitated that the petitioners herein filed O.A. No.11573 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, with a prayer to regularize their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 (Finance and Planning) Department dated 22.04.1994 from the date of completion of 5 years of service. And the said O.A. was dismissed by the Administrative Tribunal with a finding that the applicants/petitioners herein have not completed 5 years of service as on the cut of date i.e. 27.09.1993 and unless they complete 5 years of service as on the cutoff date they are not entitled for regularization of service and also further contended that the orders in W.P. No.77217 of 2017 dated 19.09.2017 W.P. No.1425 of 2019 dated 15.10.2019 and WP 19361 of 2018 dated 29.08.2019 are disposed of directed to consider for regularization against existing vacancies subject to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary v. State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 And also relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others, 2023 LiveLaw(SC) 91 for the proposition that two conditions for regularizations of daily wage employees shall be fulfilled, firstly, initial appoin