Smt. Che. Esther Madhulatha v. Sri. Ajay Mishra,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE A.V.SESHA SAI C.C.No.900 of 2017 ORDER:

This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 18.4.2016 passed in W.P.No.32446 of 2015. 2.

Heard Sri G.Jonathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Bhupal Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 3.

This Court by way of the above said order, allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order passed by the 4th respondent-Secretary, Telangana State Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society in proceedings Rc.No.T/Dis/Zone-VI/Prl.Estt/15706/2006 dated 8.7.2015 and consequently directed the Respondents to treat the period of suspension from 24.7.2006 to 2.2.2007 as 'on duty' and further declared that the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits and this Court also directed to settle all the terminal benefits of the petitioner by including the above said period also. 4.

Today, when the matter is called, a letter bearing Rc.No.Pensions/121/ 2016 dated 19.4.2017 is placed on record by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 Sri N.Bhupal Reddy. By way of the said letter, the Secretary, TSWREI Society, Hyderabad sent the service pension proposals of the petitioner along with relevant documents to the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Hyderabad with a request to issue PPO/Gratuity and Commutation of authorisation at an early date to the individual pension payment office, Secretary TSWREIS, Hyderabad. In the said letter, it is stated that the suspension period is settled vide proceedings Rc.No.T/HO/Estt/ 4700/09 dated 9.9.2016. While referring to the said letter,

it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per rules, the petitioner is also entitled for the interest on the delayed payment. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said aspect is not the subject matter of the present issue.

5.

Therefore, in view of the above, the contempt case is closed with a liberty to the petitioner to raise her claim in appropriate proceedings, if she is aggrieved by any action on the part of the Respondents herein. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date: 14.7.2017 DA

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE A.V.SESHA SAI C.C.No.900 of 2017 14.7.2017 DA