Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(AP) 1447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Boddu Rattaiah S/o. Late Koteswara Rao - Appellant
Vs.
R R Singh, Chairman And Managing Director - Respondent
Contempt Case No.4802 Of 2024
Decided On : 31-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri P V Ramana
For the Respondent: Sri P Bhaskar

Allowing a writ petition grants the entire prayer, including interest on delayed payment; non-payment of such interest constitutes contempt as pensionary benefits are a valuable right.

Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 10 and 12 - Wilful disobedience - Non-payment of interest on delayed pensionary and retiral benefits - Once a writ petition is allowed, it means allowing the entire prayer of the writ petition in toto - The term "regular benefits in accordance with law" includes interest for delayed payment - Pension and gratuity are valuable rights and property, and culpable delay must be visited with payment of interest (State of Bihar vs. Meera Tiwari, (2020) 17 SCC 305; Dr. Poornima Advani vs. Government of NCT, Civil Appeal No.2643 of 2025, dated 18.02.2025; Shiv Shankar Mishra vs. State of U.P, SAD No.10 of 2015, dated 15.01.2015) - Contempt jurisdiction is confined to whether there has been deliberate disobedience of the court's order; the court cannot go beyond the four corners of the order alleged to be flouted (Jhareswar Prasad Paul vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly, AIR 2002 SCC 2215; Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and MD, ONGC vs. M. George Ravishekaran, AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 950). (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13)

(B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Scope of writ - When a writ petition is allowed, it includes the entire prayer, including a claim for interest - Settled principle that pensionary benefits which were erroneously withheld must be paid along with interest. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired Development Officer, challenged disciplinary proceedings against him in W.P.No.24837 of 2021, which was allowed on 28.03.2023 setting aside the punishment orders and directing that the petitioner is entitle to all regular pay benefits in accordance with law. The order was confirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court. The respondents paid a total amount of Rs.17,75,559/- to the petitioner in July 2024 towards differential amounts of earned leave encashment, commuted value of pension, pension arrears, and other amounts, but did not pay interest on these amounts. The petitioner filed this contempt case alleging willful disobedience of the court's order regarding payment of interest @ 12% per annum.

Findings of Court:
The court held that once a writ petition is allowed, it means allowing the entire prayer, which included a specific claim for interest @ 12% per annum. The direction to pay "all regular pay benefits in accordance with law" includes interest, as the jurisprudence of service law mandates payment of interest on delayed payment of pensionary benefits, which constitute a valuable right and property. The action of the respondents in not paying interest amounts to deviation from and non-compliance with the court's order. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were held liable and directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- each to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority.

Issues: The main issues were (1) whether the respondents' act of not paying interest despite allowing the writ petition in toto constituted willful disobedience; (2) whether the term "regular benefits in accordance with law" includes interest; and (3) whether non-payment of interest amounted to contempt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that allowing a writ petition means allowing the entire prayer, including a claim for interest. The term "regular benefits in accordance with law" includes interest on delayed payment of pensionary benefits, as pension is a valuable right. The respondents' failure to pay interest constituted willful disobedience of the court's order, making them liable under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Result: Contempt Case allowed. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 directed to pay Rs.2,000/- each as costs to the Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within four weeks. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Table of Content
1. what are the factual background and procedural history of the contempt case? (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. what are the arguments of the petitioner and respondents regarding the payment of interest? (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. how does the court interpret the scope of its original order and the entitlement to interest? (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. what is the legal consequence of non-compliance with the court's order regarding pensionary benefits? (Para 13)
5. what is the final conclusion and order of the court in the contempt case? (Para 14 , 15)

ORDER:

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.

1. This Contempt Case has been filed against the orders dated 28.03.2023 in W.P.No.24837 of 2021 to the extent of interest at the rate of 12% per annum while paying a total amount of Rs.17,75,559/- under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. W.P.No.24837 of 2021 is filed claiming the following relief:

“..to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority in Ref No.VPRO-CDA/CL- II/01/2017 dated 16.04.2018 "reduction of basic pay to the minimum in the cadre of Development Officer Grade- I", Orders passed by the Appellate Authority in Ref.No.590-A dated 05.07.2019 "modifying the punishment to that of reduction of basic pay to 5 increments permanently" and the orders passed by the Revisional Authority Ref No.495-M dated 22.04.2020 modifying the punishment to that of "reduction of basic pay by 3 increments permanently" as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 (2) of Constitution of India and consequently declare that the entire orders imposed are without power and jurisdiction and the petitioner is entitled to all the regular pay benefits without there being any reduction in the pay with interest @ 12% on arrears and to pass such other order or orders..”

3. On 28.03.2023, this Court allowed the writ petition with the following direction:

“Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 22.04.2020 and order of Appellate Authority dated 05.07.2019 and orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 16.04.2018 are hereby set aside and the Petitioner is entitled to all the regular pay benefits in accordance with law. No costs.”

4. It is submitted that, the order passed by the learned single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.581 of 2023 dated 22.01.2024. Thereafter, the matter was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP No.10556 of 2024 and the same was dismissed on 26.06.2024. It is submitted that, in view of the initial punishment order of Reduction of Basic Pay to the Minimum Time Scale in the cadre of Development Officer Grade-I vide order dated 16.04.2018, the pay of the petitioner was reduced to minimum in the cadre of Development Officer Grade-I till 05.07.2019 and the punishment was modified to that of reduction of basic pay to 5 increments permanently. The said order was implemented till the Revisional Authority modified the punishment on 22.04.2020 to that of Reduction of Basic Pay by 3 increments permanently and the said punishment was implemented till the retirement of the petitioner in the month of June, 2022. The respondents calculated the incremental arrears from the date of original punishment orders i.e. 16.04.2018 and arrived at Rs.10,53,376/- and paid the same. The earlier pensionary benefits like Gratuity, Earned Leave Encashment and Commuted Value of Pension were paid without counting incremental arrears, should also be revised. He submits that the differential amounts viz., Earned Leave Encashment of Rs.2,49,796/-; Commuted Value of Pension Rs.98,966/- ; pension arrears of Rs.1,25,898/- and other differential amounts of rs.79,523/-; thus totaling to Rs.17,75,559/- was paid to the petitioner in the month of July, 2024.

5. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed common counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that, the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(AP) 1447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATIVENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.Boddu Rattaiah S/o. Late Koteswara Rao - AppellantVs.R R Singh, Chairman And Managing Director - RespondentContempt Case No.4802 Of 2024Decided On : 31-12-2025

Allowing a writ petition grants the entire prayer, including interest on delayed payment; non-payment of such interest constitutes contempt as pensionary benefits are a valuable right.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Boddu Rattaiah S/o. Late Koteswara Rao - Appellant
Vs.
R R Singh, Chairman And Managing Director - Respondent
Contempt Case No.4802 Of 2024
Decided On : 31-12-2025