Contempt jurisdiction is limited to determining deliberate disobedience of a court order; it cannot be used to adjudicate disputes regarding the quantum of monetary benefits or interpret entitlements not specifically detailed in the original order.

ORDER:

This contempt case has been filed seeking to punish the respondents/contemnors for willfully disobeying the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by this Court in Review I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P. (TR) No.1450 of 2017, by invoking the provisions of Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Mr. M. Hara Gopal, who is the petitioner in the contempt case, appeared as a party-in-person. Though he has engaged counsel, he requested this Court to permit him to argue the case on his own.

3. Heard the petitioner/party-in-person, and Mr. S. Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents/contemnors.

4. Submissions of learned petitioner/party-in-person:

4.1. Learned petitioner/party-in-person submitted that this Court while disposing of Review I.A.No.2 of 2023 on 03.04.2024 directed the respondents/contemnors to treat the period from 30.07.2001 to 04.07.2002 as compulsory wait and extend the service benefits in his favour by giving time limit. However, the respondents have wrongly calculated the amount at only Rs.65,262/-, whereas, he is entitled to an amount of Rs.7,27,372/-. The respondents are intentionally disobeying the orders passed by this Court in Review I.A.No.2 of 2023 and, therefore, they are liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

5. Submissions of learned Government Pleader:

5.1. Learned Government Pleader submitted that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the Government has issued Memo No.5657/IE/A1/2019, dated 19.06.2025, which was communicated vide the Director’s Proc.Rc.No.CIESER1/PCH1/1/ 2024-SER1, dated 25.06.2025. Thereafter, the necessary pay fixation was carried out vide the Director’s Proc.Rc.No.CIE- SER1/PCH1/1/2024-SER1, dated 30.06.2025.

5.2. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the Account Section of the Office of the Director of Intermediate Education, Telangana, Hyderabad, paid the arrears amounting to Rs.1,70,441/- on 05.08.2025. However, the petitioner submitted a statement claiming that the respondents were liable to pay the arrears of Rs.7,27,372/-. Basing on the said statement, respondent No.2, through proceedings dated 02.02.2026, deputed one B. Narsimha Rao, Senior Audit Officer (Retired), who is presently attending to the audit work in the office, to verify the petitioner’s claim for arrears, including eligibility, amounts already drawn and amounts claimed, and to submit a report.

5.3. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the Senior Audit Officer (Retired) submitted a report dated 17.03.2026 stating that the petitioner had claimed House Rent Allowance (HRA) at the rate of 20%, which is applicable to the Hyderabad District, and that his claim for payment of HRA at 20% applicable to Hyderabad for the period from 30.07.2001 to 04.07.2002, during which he was treated as being on ‘Compulsory Wait’, had been accepted. The report further states that the petitioner had earlier been sanctioned Half Pay Leave for the period from 30.07.2001 to 22.02.2002 and that payment for the said period had already been made by the Principal, Government Junior College, Bichkund, Nizamabad District. However, the petitioner claimed arrears for the said period without taking into account the fact that he had already drawn half salary for the very same period. Therefore, it was found appropriate to deduct the amounts already paid to him. The report of the Senior Audit Officer (Retired) further states that the petition