IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT PETITION No.37976 of 2025

Dated:11.12.2025

Between: Ch. Aruna

…Petitioner

and

Kamal Kishore Soan,

and six others. …Respondents

ORDER:

Learned counsel Sri T.Koteswara Rao appears for the

petitioner.

Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General

of India, appears for the respondents.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner, who is the applicant before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Telangana) (hereinafter referred to as, “the Tribunal”), is aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2025 whereby the objections raised by the Registry were sustained and the papers of the contempt petition, seeking invocation of the contempt jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal for alleged violation of an interim order of status quo granted on 12.01.2022 in O.A.No.021/0021/2022, were directed to be returned to the petitioner. O.A.No.021/0021/2022 was finally dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2023 and the interim order got vacated. Another M.A.No.649 of 2022 was also dismissed.

4. The petitioner had been promoted from Assistant Welfare Administrator to Welfare Administrator and posted at Nagpur by the order impugned before the learned Tribunal. But, she insisted for retaining her at Hyderabad on the health ground of her husband, who is working as TTI in South Central Railways, Secunderabad, and on the ground of her daughter’s studies at Hyderabad. The learned Tribunal had granted an order of status quo on 12.01.2022, which remained in force till the Original Application was dismissed. The contempt petition alleging contempt of the interim order of status quo was electronically filed on 03.07.2025, whereas the physical filing of the said petition was done on 16.09.2025. The office of the learned Tribunal endorsed it as beyond the limitation period counted from the date of alleged cause of action i.e., 22.07.2024. The objection of the Registry was affirmed by the impugned order dated 10.11.2025.

5. There is another aspect to the matter. As is commonly understood, the interim orders merge with the final order. In the instant case, when the Original Application was dismissed, the order of status quo dated 12.01.2022 got vacated by the final order dated 03.03.2023. The reason for alleging contempt on the part of the petitioner is that after dismissal of the Original Application, the respondents have issued notice for unauthorised absence during the period the petitioner did not join the transferred place of posting. Incidentally, before the interim order of status quo was passed on 12.01.2022, the petitioner was relieved from her place of charge on 07.01.2022 itself. The petitioner contended that during the joining time of ten days, in view of status quo order, the petitioner was not required to join at the transferred place. For unauthorised absence during that period, the petitioner has been issued a show cause notice which is in breach of interim order of status quo.

6. We understand that the date of e-filing should be treated as an effective date of filing for counting the period of limitation in view of the decision rendered in the case of Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics (P) Ltd. followed in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited²

7. However, on a conspectus of the facts noted above, we are of the view that the issuance of show cause notice for alleged unauthorised absence could be a fresh cause of action for the petitioner and not a case of invocation of (2024) 2 SCC 545 (2024) 3 SCC 27 contempt jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not feel necessary to exercise the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order as prayed for. However, the petitioner is at liberty to assail the show cause notice alleging unauthorised absence for certain period when she did not join in a freshly constituted applic