THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK C.C.No.2732 OF 2023

27.01.2026 Between:

B.Dilip Kumar …Petitioner A N D Amber Kishore Jha, IPS Superintendent of Police, Now Commissioner of Police, Warangal, Warangal District and

2 others …Respondents ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Ms. K.V.Vani, learned counsel representing Mr. A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and B. Krishna, learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. The instant is a contempt case which has been filed alleging willful non-compliance of the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6000 of 2026 which has been further confirmed by the Division Bench of this High Court in W.P.No.14727 of 2007, decided on 09.06.2023.

3. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the following observations in paragraph 19 of the learned Tribunal while allowing O.A.No.6000 of 2006:

Therefore, I allow this application, by setting aside the impugned order C.No.135/PR/02, dated 30.4.2025, of the Superintendent of Police, Warangal, 1^st respondent herein, where under the applicant was dismissed from services, by invoking Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 25(2) of the A.P.C.S (CC & A) Rules, 1991. The disciplinary authority i.e., 1^st respondent herein, is at liberty to conduct an enquiry against the applicant, for the alleged misconducts as contemplated under the A.P.C.S (CC & A) Rules, 1991.

4. Today, the learned counsel representing the respondents produced the order dated 28.02.2024 whereby the Government in order to comply with the order of setting aside the order of termination have reinstated the petitioner vide order dated 28.02.2024 and at the same time in tune with the observations in paragraph 19 of the Tribunal’s order reproduced above, the respondents have contemplated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and have accordingly placed his services under suspension. Meanwhile, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that so far payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, the petitioner has been paid the subsistence allowance from the initial date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. However, because of the revision of pay that took place in between, the benefit of the revised pay scale could not be extended, which is already in the process of being calculated and shall be released to the petitioner very soon. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the calculation of subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner also is erroneous. The petitioner is entitled for much more subsistence allowance than what has been calculated by the respondents.

5. Be that as it may, the calculation of the actual subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner is not one which cannot be looked into by this Bench invoking the contempt jurisdiction. So far as the contempt case is concerned, all that we need to look into is the compliance of the order dated 28.02.2007 in O.A.No.6000 of 2006. The order dated 28.02.2024 referred to by the respondents prima facie reflects compliance of the order of the OA. So far as the dispute of improper calculation of subsistence allowance, the petitioner would be free to agitate the same independently.

6. The contempt case is, accordingly, closed and the respondents are discharged from the contempt case. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________

P.SAM KOSHY, J

______________________

PULLA KARTHIK, J

27.01.2026

Lrkm