B.Chandra Rao, E.G.District. And Another v. R. Muthayala Raju, Visakhapatnam And 2 Others

The Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao Contempt Case No.195 of 2016 Order:

This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of Order, dated 30-12-2015, in WPMP.No.53327 of 2015 in WP.No.41309 of 2015, by the respondents.

The subject matter of the aforesaid Writ Petition is extension of the age of superannuation to the employees working in the Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited (APEPDCL). By the impugned Order, this Court directed the petitioners to continue in service until further orders.

The above Writ Petition along with a batch of similar Writ Petitions was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 24-03-2017, in pursuance of which, the Government has taken a decision to extend the age of superannuation to the employees working in the Institutions included in the IX and X Schedules of A.P.Re-organization Act, 2014. Accordingly, vide E.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.99/2017, dated 30-06-2017, the APEPDCL has granted such extension to all its employees with all consequential benefits retrospectively. Consequently, Orders were issued to the petitioners directing them to join

PNR, J C.C.No.195/2014 Dt: 25-01-2018 duty subject to the condition of remittance of the amounts already received by them.

In view of issuance of the aforesaid orders, the direction of this Court stood complied with. But, this Court has not directed the respondents to impose any condition for reinstatement, more particularly, with reference to remittance of the amounts already paid. However, the learned Standing Counsel informed the Court that even though the said condition was relaxed, the petitioners did not join duty and that they have also attained the extended age of superannuation of 60 years.

Having regard to the above facts, it cannot be said that there is a deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Court by the respondents warranting initiation of Contempt proceedings against them. If the petitioners still have any grievance, they are at liberty to avail appropriate remedies available to them in law.

The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.

________________ (P.Naveen Rao, J) Dt: 25th January, 2018 lur

PNR, J C.C.No.195/2014 Dt: 25-01-2018