J. Anitha, v. Sri. G.V. Ramana Rao,

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1927 of 2015 ORDER:

1. This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-implementation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.30331 of 2013 dated 25.03.2014.

2.

The aforesaid order was based on an order in another batch of cases in W.P.No.14783 of 2010 dated 12.10.2011. The order passed by this Court on 25.03.2014 in W.P.No.30331 of 2013 reads as follows:

"When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it is represented by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.14783 of 2010 and batch dated 12.10.2011, which is as follows:

Hence, the writ petitions are allowed. It is directed that the services of the petitioners shall be regularized with effect from the date on which the employees selected in pursuance of the notification dated 10.10.1999 were regularized, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.285 dated 05.10.2007. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners, however, shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit, on account of the change of date of regularization. Hence, following the said orders, this writ petition is disposed of on the same terms. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed."

3.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents produced before this Court a copy of the proceedings dated 14.08.2015 and 21.11.2015 implementing the orders in W.P.No.30331 of 2013. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of this Court was not properly implemented as monetary benefit was denied to the petitioners.

4.

In the circumstances, if the petitioners have any

grievance, it is always open to the petitioners to agitate the matter, but the interpretation of the order cannot be subject matter of contempt proceedings.

5. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

______________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J 14-06-2016 Gsn