Kp Arun Kumar, Hyd v. Ranjan Sen, Hyd And Another

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1617 OF 2017 DATED : 04.12.2017 Between :

Dr KP Arun Kumar S/o.Shri KK Puttaraje Gowda, Aged about 38 yrs, Occu : Staff Scientist, CDFD, R/o.H.No.1-72/2, Street No.1, Srinivasa Nagar, Boduppal, Hyderabad - 500 092 .. Petitioner And Dr.Ranjan Sen, In-charge Director, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), Department of Biotechnology (DBT), (Ministry of Science and Technology, Govt. of India), Hostel & Residential Complex, Survey Nos.728, 729, 730 & 734, Opp : Uppal Water Tank, Beside BSNL T E Building, Uppal, Hyderabad-500 039, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State & another.

.. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1617 OF 2017 ORDER:

This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents have violated the undertaking given before this Court. 2.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, though the services of the petitioner are continued in terms of the letter dated 13.03.2017, petitioner was not granted the same powers, privileges and responsibilities which he was exercising earlier and his powers, privileges and responsibilities are reduced/curtailed and the same amounts to violation of undertaking given before this Court and thus the respondents are liable to be proceeded under the Contempt of Courts Act.

3.

To appreciate this contention, it is necessary to note what is prayed by the petitioner in W.P.M.P.No.6488 of 2017 in W.P.No.5340 of 2017 and what is recorded by this Court while disposing of the W.P.M.P.

4.

The W.P.M.P., was filed praying to grant interim relief directing the 1st respondent to continue the service of the petitioner in the Laboratory of Molecular Genetics or any other laboratory of the 1st respondent Institute on the same lines of his appointment in the COE Project for scale position and at the end of the COE project to continue his ongoing research activities. 5.

When the W.P.M.P., was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the services of the petitioner may not be

- 3 - continued after 31.03.2017 and sought for interim direction to continue his services.

6.

Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents produced a copy of the letter dated 13.03.2017 addressed to the petitioner by the Director informing him that his services are extended till 31.12.2017. He further informed the Court that the present Director is only holding the position as in charge and therefore, he could not grant the extension for a longer period and the entitlement of the petitioner for further continuation would be reviewed after a regular Director is posted. Having regard to these developments, the W.P.M.P., was closed holding that no further orders are required to be passed. 7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that petitioner is continued as per the letter dated 13.03.2017 but only sought to contend that the same terms and conditions of his employment obtaining prior to the letter dated 13.03.2017 are not extended to him.

8.

As noted above, no direction was issued by the Court and closed the W.P.M.P., holding that no further orders are required in view of the decision taken by the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner beyond 31.03.2017 and the fact remains that petitioner is continued in service. Whether the terms of continuation are not similar to the terms prior to 31.03.2017 cannot be gone into the contempt proceedings, as there was no such undertaking given by the respondents nor the Court directed to continue the petitioner on the same terms and conditions as obtaining prior to the letter dated 13.03.2017. Thus, it cannot be

- 4 - said that there is violation of the directions of this Court, much less deliberate and wilful, warranting initiation of proceedings by this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act.

9.

Having regard to the above observations, the respondents are discharged from the contempt proceedings and accordingly the Contempt Case is closed. It is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies as available in law, if he is aggrieved by the service conditions after the letter dated 13.03.2017. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 4th December 2017 Rds