IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA:

HYDERABAD * * *

CONTEMPT CASE No.856 of 2025 Between:

V. Srinivas, S/o. V.Narsaiah.

Petitioner VERSUS Manoj Kumar, S/o. Not known, Aged : Major, Occ: Registrar, National Institute of Rural Development, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad and another.

Respondents ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 22.04.2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _______________ P.SAM KOSHY, J * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO + CONTEMPT CASE No.856 of 2025 % 22.04.2026 # Between:

V. Srinivas, S/o. V.Narsaiah.

Petitioner VERSUS Manoj Kumar, S/o. Not known, Aged : Major, Occ: Registrar, National Institute of Rural Development, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad and another.

Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel.

^Counsel for the respondent(s) : Mr. Sai Eshwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. N.B.Sudarshan.

GIST:

> HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred

1) AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1465 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.856 of 2025 DATE: 22.04.2026 Between:

V. Srinivas, S/o. V.Narsaiah.

…Petitioner AND Manoj Kumar, S/o. Not known, Aged : Major, Occ: Registrar, National Institute of Rural Development, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad and another.

…Respondents

ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Sai Eshwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. N.B.Sudarshan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant is a Contempt Case filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging willful non-

compliance of the order and direction given by the Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Petition No.5292 of 2020, decided on

03.05.2024.

3. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the operative part of the order passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Petition No.5292 of 2020. For ready reference, the operative part is reproduced hereunder:

“5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that the 2^nd respondent was initially appointed as contract employee on 04.07.1997. Though the 2^nd respondent was appointed after undergoing regular selection process, right to be considered is a fundamental right. The Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioners to regularize the service of the 2^nd respondent, “if he is otherwise” eligible. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioners are “directed to consider” the case of the 2^nd respondent for regularization of his services, “if he is otherwise eligible” and “pass appropriate orders” in accordance with law. No costs.”

4. To understand the facts more clearly, it would also be relevant at this juncture to take note of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short the ‘Tribunal’) in TA.No.21/1/2015 (W.P.No.397/2003), decided on 24.12.2019, whereby the Tribunal in its operative part has held as under:

“11. The T.A. is accordingly allowed. The respondents shall consider the case of the applicant for regularization of his contractual services, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. We also direct that on such regularization, the applicant shall be extended the same benefits as was done in the case of other contractual employees, who were regularized.”

It was this direction which was su