Syed Murtuza Ali, v. M.G.Gopal,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1746 of 2012 Dated : 01.04.2016 Between:

Syed Murtuza Ali S/o.Syed Mohammed Ali, Aged about 44 yrs, Working at Mumtaz College (A minority aided Institution), Malakpet, R/o.H.No.17-2-893/2, A1-Madina Colony, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad .. Petitioner And Smt.Ranjav R. Acharya, I.A.S., Principal Secretary, Higher Education (CE-2), Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others.

.. Respondents This Court made the following :

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1746 of 2012

ORDER :

This contempt case is filed by the petitioner to punish the respondents for disobeying the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.33585 of 2010 dated 25.04.2012.

2. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that as per the earlier directions of this Court, proposals were already submitted to the Government for revision of pay scale of the petitioner, as a consequence to the Revision of Pay Scales in the year 2015. He also submits that though earlier income tax was deducted from the petitioner's salary, however, the same was remitted to the account of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that an amount of Rs.3000/- per month is deducted from the arrears sanctioned by the Government alleging that for the period February, 2014 to July 2014, said amount was paid by the Management even though no such amount was paid to the petitioner and the same should be remitted back to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent undertakes that the matter will be reviewed, and if such deductions were made even though no amount was paid earlier, the same shall be remitted back to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously disputes the action of the respondent-Management in deducting lumpsum amount from the arrears sanctioned by the Government without informing the petitioner, causing great hardship and suffering to the petitioner and such amount could not have been deducted in lumpsum and that the respondent-Management ought have obtained the consent of the petitioner for such deduction in instalments. This is a matter between the petitioner and respondent-Management and no opinion can be expressed in this contempt case.

5. Having regard to the above, the additional affidavit deposed on 28.03.2016, filed in this contempt case, a copy of which is served on Sri B. Nalin Kumar, shall be treated as a representation and the petitioner's grievance may be attended to by the Management.

6. With reference to the application of revised pay scales, learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that proposals were approved by the competent authority on 04.03.2016 and bill was sanctioned on 19.03.2016 and he assures that steps will be taken to release the arrears of

amount within a period of two weeks.

7. Having regard to the assurance given by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent and learned Special Government Pleader, I am satisfied that the contempt case need not be kept pending.

8. Accordingly, the Contempt case is closed. All other grievances of the petitioner are left open to work out his remedies. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this contempt case shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 01st April, 2016.

Rds