Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI CONTEMPT CASE NO.4802 OF 2024 Between:
1. B ODDU RATTAIAH, S/O. LATE KOTESWARA RAO, AGE. 63 YEARS, RETIRED DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BOSE ROAD, TENALI, R/O. D.NO.2-9-2, GANDHI NAGAR, TENALI, 522201 ...PETITIONER AND
1. R R SINGH, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CORPORATE OFFICE, BLOCK NO.4 - PLATE A, NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX, KIDWAI NAGAR EAST, NEW DELHI-110023
2. S RI TARUN KANTI MOHANTY, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (H.R), THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CORPORATE OFFICE, BLOCK NO.4- PLATE A 1 NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX, KIDWAI NAGAR EAST, NEW DELHI-110023.
3. S RI KOTA KOTESWARA RAO, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, REGIONAL OFFICE, D.NO.28-1-1, 2ND FLOOR, SRI NITYA COMPLEX, RAMA TALKIES ROAD, CBM COMPOUND, DWARAKA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH, 530003
4. P SATISH BABU, REGIONAL MANAGER PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO REGIONAL OFFICER NEAR RAMA TALKIES DWARAKA NAGAR VISAKHAPATNAM A P 530016 R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 03 02 2025 VIDE I A NO 1 OF
2025 IN CC NO 4802 OF 2024 ...CONTEMNOR(S):
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 31.12.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
11. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?
22. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
33. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_____________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA * HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA + CONTEMPT CASE NO.4802 OF 2024 % 31.12.2025 # BODDU RATTAIAH, S/O. LATE KOTESWARA RAO, AGE. 63 YEARS, RETIRED DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BOSE ROAD, TENALI, R/O. D.NO.2-9-2, GANDHI NAGAR, TENALI, 522201 .. Petitioner Vs.
$ R R SINGH, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CORPORATE OFFICE, BLOCK NO.4 - PLATE A, NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX, KIDWAI NAGAR EAST, NEW DELHI-110023 and three others .. Contemnors ! Counsel for petitioner: Sri P V RAMANA ^ Counsel for respondents: Sri P BHASKAR ? CASES REFERRED:
1. (2020) 17 SCC 305
2. AIR 2002 SCC 2215
3. AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 950
44. AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2215 5. AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 950 APHC010589532024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4802/2024 Between:
1. B ODDU RATTAIAH, S/O. LATE KOTESWARA RAO, AGE. 63 YEARS, RETIRED DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BOSE ROAD, TENALI, R/O. D.NO.2-
9-2, GANDHI NAGAR, TENALI, 522201 ...PETITIONER AND
1. R R SINGH, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CORPORATE OFFICE, BLOCK NO.4 - PLATE A, NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX, KIDWAI NAGAR EAST, NEW DELHI-110023
2. S RI TARUN KANTI MOHANTY, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (H.R), THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CORPORATE OFFICE, BLOCK NO.4-PLATE A 1 NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX, KIDWAI NAGAR EAST, NEW DELHI-110023.
3. S RI KOTA KOTESWARA RAO, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, REGIONAL OFFICE, D.NO.28-1-1, 2ND FLOOR, SRI NITYA COMPLEX, RAMA TALKIES ROAD, CBM COMPOUND, DWARAKA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH, 530003
4. P SATISH BABU, REGIONAL MANAGER PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO REGIONAL OFFICER NEAR RAMA TALKIES DWARAKA NAGAR VISAKHAPATNAM A P 530016 R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 03 02 2025 VIDE I A NO 1 OF 2025 IN CC NO 4802 OF 2024 ...CONTEMNOR(S):
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to be pleased to summon and punish the Respondents under Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to the extent not granting interest for intentionally and willfully not implementing the orders of this Court passed in W.RNo.24837/2021 dated 28-3-2023 to the extent of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum while paying a total amount of Rs.17,75,559/- under Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P V RAMANA Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. P BHASKAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE No.4802 of 2024 This Court made the following
ORDER:-
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 had categorically admitted that a total amount of Rs.17,75,559/- is paid and the petitioner had filed contempt only for the interest portion which is not granted by the Courts, thus the Contempt, as alleged by the petitioner is not maintainable. The petitioner is claiming interest basing on his own understandings and perceptions. A reading of the directions issued by the Courts does not direct the respondents to pay the interest, except setting aside the orders of the Revisional Authority, Appellate Authority and Disciplinary Authority, while directing the petitioner that he
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
