THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.80 OF 2020

ORDER:

This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of the orders of the Court, dated 28.03.2019, passed in W.P.No.6531 of

2019.

2. Heard Sri Phani Bhushan, learned counsel representing Sri Bondempally Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed in W.P.No.6531 of 2019, dated 28.03.2019, has not been complied with in its true spirit. It is contended that the respondents have passed the compliance order, dated 17.09.2025, in a mechanical manner without considering the relevant aspects. The learned Single Judge had specifically referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi [(2006) 4 S.C.C. 1], but the authorities, without following the said directions, simply rejected the claim of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that in W.P.No.6531 of 2019, dated 28.03.2019, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevi (cited supra) and pass appropriate orders.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that, vide Memo Rc.No.2279/H&S/2019-4 dated 17.09.2025, the case of the petitioner was examined and rejected. The relevant portion of the said memo reads as follows:

“10. In compliance to the Orders in W.P.No.6531 of 2019 and to the C.C.No.80/2020, filed by the Petitioners before the Hon'ble High Court Telangana, Hyderabad and after verification of the conditions laid in the G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW- PC-III) Department, Dated 22.04.1994 & G.O.(P).No.112 Fin & Plg (FW.PC-III) Dept. dt:23.07.1997, as there is no provision to regularise the services and they are not fulfilling the Condition No.5 stipulated in the G.O.Ms.No.212 Fin & Plg (FW.PC.III) Dept. Dt.22.04.1994 and also Condition No.1 stipulated in the G.O.(P).No.112, Fin & Plg (FW.PC-III) Dept. dt.23.07.1997, since the petitioners are not engaged against any sanctioned posts in the department and no worker post is available in the cadre in the Department of Sericulture.”

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that G.O.(P).No.112 is not applicable to the petitioner and that Condition No.5 of G.O.Ms.No.212 is also not relevant to case of the petitioner. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner claim by the respondents vide order dated 17.09.2025 is in mechanical manner and not in accordance with law.

7. Having considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel, it is to be noted that the scope of a Contempt Case is very limited. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 28.03.2019, directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevi (cited supra) and pass appropriate orders. Technically speaking, the authorities have considered the case of the petitioner and rejected by order dated

17.09.2025, assigning reasons as stated above.

8. However, this Court is of the considered view that if the petitioner has any grievance with respect to the said rejection order dated 17.09.2025, she is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. This Court, however, cannot interfere with the correctness of the said order in a Contempt Case.

9. In view of the above submissions made by both the learned counsel and in view of the order passed by the respondent authorities vide Memo Rc.No.2279/H&S/2019-4, dated 17.09.2025, the Court is of the considered view that the order passed by this Court has been complied with.

10. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, liberty