← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCC/1934/2017closed no costs

Shaik Mohammed Shafi, Ysr Kadapa Dist. And 3 Others v. Sri Sri Ajay Jain, I.A.S., Guntur Dist.

2018-03-02P Naveen Rao3 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1934 OF 2017 Dated:02.03.2018 Between:

Shaik Mohammed Shafi, S/o. Shaik Mahabub Saheb, 61 years, Line Inspector (Retired) O/o. AAE Operations, APSPDCL, R/o. Balaji Nagar, DR, YSR Kadapa District and others .. Petitioners And Sri Sri Ajay Jain, IAS, Principal Secretary to Government, Energy Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District .. Respondent The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1934 OF 2017 ORDER:

By order dated 31.03.2017, W.P.No.11461 of 2017 was disposed of directing the Principal Secretary, Energy Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, to issue instructions to the Chairman and Managing Director, APSPDCL, Tirupati, Chittoor District, pursuant to letter dated 15.03.2011 addressed by the Chairman and Managing Director, APSPDCL, to the Principal Secretary. Alleging violation of the said directions, this contempt case is filed. 2.

When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Government Pleader for Energy (Andhra Pradesh) produced letter No.999/OP.A3/2011, dated 13.12.2017, addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director, AP TRANSCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, rejecting the proposals to grant GPF, promotions and compassionate appointment and also consequent orders dated 06.02.2018 issued by the Chief General Manager informing the individual employees.

3.

Though learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend that the orders are not valid in law and that the petitioners are subjected to harassment by rejecting their claim again and again having regard to the directions issued by the Court, the said issues cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings.

4.

The Contempt Case is accordingly closed. The contemnor is discharged. However, it is needless to observe that it is for the petitioners to work out their remedies as available in law,

if aggrieved by the decision of the Government and the consequential orders.

____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date:02.03.2018 KH