IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

CONTEMPT CASE No.2344 OF 2024

DATE: 09.12.2025

Between

Smt. K. Yeshoda

...Petitioner

AND

Smt. Pramilasathpathi, I.A.S.,

District Collector (SCDD) Karimnagar District

Karimnagar and three others.

...Respondents

ORDER

This Contempt Case is filed seeking punishment to the

respondents under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for violation and wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 01.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.20538 of 2023 and to pass such

other order or orders.

2. This Court, vide order dated 01.08.2023 in W.P.No.20538 of 2023 had directed respondents No.3 and 4 therein to consider the

representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner was seeking regularization of her services with effect from the date of her initial appointment i.e., 03.05.1991, as was done in the case of a similarly situated employee, i.e., Smt. M. Shantha. It was stated that the services of the said similarly placed employee had been regularized from the date of her initial appointment. Alleging non-compliance of the orders of the Court, the present Contempt Case has been filed.

3. The petitioner claims to have made several representations to the authorities for compliance of the directions of this Court; but since, no action was taken, the Contempt Case has been filed.

4. Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit stating that, in compliance with the directions of this Court, he submitted a detailed report dated 26.10.2023 to the Commissioner (SCDD), Telangana, Hyderabad, for taking appropriate action on the claim of the petitioner for regularization of her services from the date of her initial appointment. The Commissioner (SCDD) also addressed a letter dated 28.02.2024 to the Government in this regard. By endorsement dated

27.10.2023, the petitioner was informed that her request would be considered after receipt of orders from the Commissioner and the Government, as the District Collector is not the competent authority for regularization of appointments. In the meantime, the petitioner filed the Contempt Case. It is further stated that thereafter, the Government, through letter dated 28.05.2025, decided to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.12.2015 as Kamati and also sanctioned consequential monetary benefits from the date of her regular appointment under the scheme for relief and rehabilitation of victims of atrocities belonging to SCs and STs issued in G.O.Ms.No.29, Social Welfare (H) Department, dated 08.03.1985 and informed the District Collector to take necessary action in the matter. On the basis of the instructions of the Government and the Commissioner, an endorsement dated 12.06.2025 has been issued to the petitioner informing her that her services were regularized with effect from 01.12.2015 and that she had already been claiming the monetary benefits from 01.12.2015 and at present, no new action is to be taken in the matter. It is further stated that aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 16.06.2025, which was forwarded to the Commissioner (SCDD) for further instructions and the Commissioner, in turn, addressed a letter dated 26.06.2025 to the Principal Secretary to Government and respondent No.1 had also addressed to the Principal Secretary, SCDD on 01.07.2025, 09.07.2025 and 16.07.2025 respectively. However, no instructions were received from the Government till the date of filing of the counter. Thus, according to him, the order of this Court has been complied with by considering the petitioner’s representation and there is no wilful disobedience on his part.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-III, relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit, submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved, she has to challenge the