C.Alivelu Manga, v. Mr.Dinesh Kumar

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 03.11.2017 Between :

C.Alivelu Manga, W/o M.Nagoor Babu, Aged about 58 years, working as Assistant Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Kadapa, A.P., and another.

.... Petitioners/petitioners And Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others.

.... Respondents/ Respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 This Court made the following :

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO ORDER:

This contempt case is filed alleging non-compliance of interim orders passed by this Court made in W.P.M.P.No.54687 of 2015 in W.P.No.42400 of 2015, dated 28.01.2016.

2.

By this order, Court directed continuation of the petitioners in service until they attain the age of 60 years or until further orders whichever is earlier. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents in the writ petition filed vacate petition. This writ petition along with several other writ petitions were heard by the Division Bench and by the judgement dated 07.03.2017, the Division Bench disposed of all the writ petitions, giving suitable directions to the Government on the issue of extension of age of retirement to the employees working in various public sector undertakings/authorities/Organizations/Corporations. 3.

Though there is no dispute regarding disposal of this writ petition along with batch of writ petitions, learned counsel sought to contend that till writ petition was disposed of, the interim order passed on 28.01.2016 remained in force, but the same was not implemented and not implementing the same, amounts to disobedience of orders of this Court and in terms of the order, petitioners were entitled to be inducted into service and to continuation in service.

4.

Learned counsel Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, representing respondent No.4 submits that once final orders are passed in the writ petition, interim order merged into final order. By the final orders, Division Bench has not directed to continue interim orders earlier granted and disposed of the writ petitions, giving direction to the

Government of Andhra Pradesh to take appropriate decision on the issue of extension of age of superannuation of employees working in its instrumentalities. He, therefore, submits that petitioners cannot seek enforcement of the interim order after disposal of the writ petition. He further submits that aggrieved by the ex parte interim order, immediately vacate petition was filed and this vacate petition was also heard along with writ petition and writ petition was itself disposed of finally. No orders are passed in vacate petition nor vacate petition was rejected. 5.

It is not in dispute that though interim order was in favour of petitioners, writ petition was disposed of along with batch of writ petitions. All the batch of writ petitions concern the extension of age of superannuation to the employees working in various organizations under the control of the State of Andhra Pradesh. On exhaustive consideration of the issue of extension of age of superannuation to the employees working in various organizations under the control of State of Andhra Pradesh, Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petitions on 07.03.2017.

6.

A reading of the operative portion of the order would disclose that Division Bench has not directed to continue the interim order earlier passed, but closed all the miscellaneous petitions pending. 7.

It is settled principle of law and needs no reiteration, once final orders are passed, interim order merges into the final order. Final order of the Division Bench is in the form of issuing directions to the Government with reference to issue of taking decision for extension of age of superannuation of employees working in Organizations under its control. Division Bench has not ordered to continue the interim orders nor gave a declaration in favour of the employees to continue in service until they attained age of 60 years or until further orders. Thus, it is

clear that Division Bench is not in agreement with the claim of the petitioners for continuation in service until they attain the age of 60 years.

8.

Having regard to the subsequent disposal of the writ petitions, it cannot be said that respondents have deliberately and wilfully violated the directions of this Court warranting continuation of the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Contempt Case is accordingly closed. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 03.11.2017 kkm

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 03.11.2017 kkm