ORDER :

The above contempt case is filed complaining violation of the order dated 27.09.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.21576 of 2024.

2. The petitioner along with 2 others filed the above writ petition to declare the action of the respondents 4 and 6 viz. the District Coordinator of Hospital Services and Datla Subba Raju, MLA, Mummidivaram Constituency in directing the petitioner orally not to attend the duties from 01.10.2024 onwards in the 5^th respondent-Community Health Centre (CHC), T.Kothapalli, I.Polavaram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. An interim order was passed directing the 4^th respondent, District Coordinator of Hospital Services, to continue the services of the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of their appointment/contract. While granting an interim order, it was observed that the 7^th respondent, Security Services Agency, provided the services of the petitioner as the sanitation worker in CHC, T.Kothapalli village and the 6^th respondent-MLA addressed a letter dated 09.09.2024 to the 4^th respondent to remove the petitioner and others and thereafter, the 4^th respondent orally directed the petitioner and others not to attend the duties. In those facts and circumstances, this Court granted an interim order.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it was pleaded that after the interim order, the petitioner was continued till 02.02.2025, and thereafter, the Superintendent of CHC, T.Kothapalli orally directed the petitioner not to attend the duties from 03.02.2025.

5. The above contempt case was filed on 20.02.2025.

6. Initially, the 2^nd respondent Dr.K.Karthik Reddy, filed counter affidavit. It was contended, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis by the security agency. The 2^nd respondent-contemnor is not the competent authority to appoint the petitioner or disengage her services. The Superintendent, CHC, entered into an agreement with TVT Group to provide certain services to the hospital. The said agency provided different services to the hospital as per the agreement. In the Area Hospitals, 100- bedded 2 hospitals, for which the manpower of 18 Sanitation workers to each hospital; 50-bedded hospitals to which 9 sanitation workers to each hospital and 30-bedded hospitals to which 7 sanitation workers to each hospital, are being supplied by the agency. After the interim order, the petitioner was continued till the end of January, 2025. After receipt of notice in the contempt case, the 2^nd respondent enquired about the petitioner, and the agency informed that the petitioner herself had absented due to her personal reasons. The petitioner absented for 10 days in November 2024 and 3 days in December 2024, without any prior intimation.

7. This Court, suo moto, impleaded Dr.T.Jyothirmayi, present Superintendent, CHC, T.Kothapalli as a respondent in the contempt case. A reply affidavit was filed by Dr.T.Jyothirmayi. It was contended that she assumed as Superintendent on 04.09.2025. On verification of the records and upon examination of the information furnished by the agency, she came to know that the petitioner was appointed through the TVT group. The Superintendent of CHC entered into an agreement dated 01.06.2021 with TVT group for a period of 3 years, and the same expired on 31.05.2024. Subsequently, it was extended until the execution of the agreement with the new agency on 01.10.2025. The petitioner was appointed through the TVT Group. Due to the absence of the petitioner, the agency appointed R.Meenakshi in her place from February, 2025 onwards. Despite the request made by the deponent, the agency is not accepting the petitioner due to her irregular attendance.

8. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner denying the averments in the respective counter-affidavits.

9. Heard Sri G.Simhardi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Raju, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as l