THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CONTEMPT CASE No.1412 of 2018

ORDER:

The petitioner is an Office Subordinate in the respondent-

Panchayat Raj Department. It is his case that initially he was appointed as part-time Sweeper vide Proceedings dated 28.04.1982, and his services were subsequently regularized vide Proceedings dated 30.03.2002. When the authorities have not counted his past services (prior to regularization) for the purpose of computing pension and retirement benefits, he filed W.P.No.27959 of 2017, and this Court disposed of the writ petition (along with two other similar writ petitions) by way of a Common Order dated 18.12.2017 giving liberty to the petitioners to submit appropriate representation for considering their past services for all benefits as applicable, and further directing the respondents to consider the representation. It is now the grievance of the petitioner that the Order dated 18.12.2017 passed in the writ petition has not been complied by the respondents.

2. Heard Mr. Balamukund Rao, learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr. Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel on record for the petitioner;

and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 26.02.2018 requesting to count the service rendered prior to absorption/regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.156, Finance and Planning (FW.PEN-I) Department, dated 29.04.1983, however, the respondents have not complied with the direction to consider the representation in accordance with law, and therefore they committed contempt of Court.

4. Learned Government Pleader, by referring to paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit, submits that the representation dated 26.02.2018 submitted by the petitioner was examined, and the 2^nd respondent- Commissioner issued a Memo No.523/CPR&RE/C-2/2016 dated 23.07.2018 stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997, only fulltime services prior to regularization can be counted for pension/retirement benefits, but not part-time services; and based on the Memo dated 23.07.2018, the 3^rd respondent-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, issued Proceedings dated 23.07.2018. It is contended that the petitioner, instead of challenging the Memo dated 23.07.2018 of the 2^nd respondent, and the Proceedings dated 23.07.2018 issued by the 3^rd respondent, filed this contempt case alleging non-compliance of the orders in the writ petition.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is to be noted that the 2^nd respondent’s Memo dated 23.07.2018, and are the Proceedings dated 23.07.2018 issued by the 3^rd respondent, are the proceedings issued after considering the representation dated 26.02.2018 submitted by the petitioner; and hence it cannot be said that there is no compliance of the order dated

18.12.2017 passed by this Court in the writ petition.

6. As the 2^nd respondent-Commissioner passed orders vide Memo dated 23.07.2018, and also the 3^rd respondent issued Proceedings dated 23.07.2018, this Court does not see any contempt on the part of the respondents, and therefore this Contempt Case is liable to be closed. The petitioner is however at liberty to challenge the Memo dated 23.07.2018 issued by respondent No.2 and the Proceedings dated 23.07.2018 issued by respondent No.3, in appropriate proceedings, if so advised.

7. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

08^th April, 2025 ksm