Judgment reserved on: 12.12.2025. Judgment delivered on: 23.01.2026. Judgment uploaded on: 23.01.2026.

[3506]

APHC010398332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2039 of 2025 M. Sree Ramulu ...Petitioner Vs.

N.V.S.N. Murthy, Executive Officer, Sri Venkateswara ...Contemnor Swamy Vari Devasthanam Dwaraka Tirumala.

**********

Advocate for Petitioner: Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri BHARAT BABU.N Advocate for Contemnor: Smt.PULIPATI RADHIKA CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 23th January 2026

JUDGMENT:

Present Contempt Case is instituted alleging wilful disobedience of the order, dated 01.07.2025, passed in W.P. No.15981 of 2025, and accordingly, to punish the respondent/ contemnor in terms of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

2. Petitioner was engaged as Computer Operator on outsourcing basis in the year 2006. As he was not paid minimum time scale and regularized, he preferred W.P.No.21894 of 2018. In pursuance to the interim orders, petitioner was extended minimum time scale. Later, writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to consider his request for regularisation and pass appropriate orders. By order, dated 06.06.2025, his request came to be rejected. Assailing the same, he preferred W.P.No.15981 of 2025. The writ Court, by setting aside the aforesaid order, remanded the matter back to the 3^rd respondent therein, to consider his request in view of various proceedings, by which certain others were regularized, and pass appropriate speaking orders within a period of six weeks. In sum and substance, the directions issued read as follows:

“In view of the same, the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.C3/1364/2018 dated 06.06.2025 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 3^rd respondent for reconsideration of the request of the petitioner keeping in view of various proceedings under Exhibits P13, P15 and P17 passed by respondents wherein in similar circumstances regularizations were affected and pass appropriate speaking orders within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

By proceedings, dated 25.07.2025, the 3^rd respondent passed speaking orders rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularisation. In this background, the present Contempt Case is preferred alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed in writ petition.

3. Heard Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt.Pulipati Radhika, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while drawing attention of this Court to the operative portion of the order passed in the writ petition, contends that when there is specific direction to the 3^rd respondent for consideration of request of petitioner for regularisation keeping in view the proceedings under Exs.P13, P15 and P17, the contemnor in deliberate disobedience to the same, has rejected the case of petitioner for regularisation, and more particularly, he rejected to consider Exs.P13, P15 and P17 by opining that the same to be irrelevant for the purpose of considering petitioner’s case for regularisation, which is clearly contumacious. He further contended that Exs.P13, P15 and P17 being various orders of regularisation issued with respect to the institutions at Dwaraka Tirumala and Srisailam, in similar circumstances, the respondent could not have rejected the case of the petitioner by adopting pick and choose method, which clearly amounted to an arbitrary act offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the said action would be nothing short of deliberate act of violating orders passed in writ petition. He further contended that the reasons recorded in the speaking order are clearly unfounded and misleading, inasmuch as, reference is made only to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, conveniently om