HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.C. No. 759 of 2010 DATED: 25.02.2011 Between: M. Komaramma and 14 others .. Petitioners And 1. MVPC Sastry, Govt. of A.P. 2. K.Chandra Mouli, Commissioner, Panchayt Raj and Rural Employment 3. Aruna, District Collector 4. V.Venkateswarulu, District Panchayat Officer .. Respondents O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This Contempt Case is filed by the respondents in W.P.No. 25810 of 2002. The writ petition filed by the State was disposed of following the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Manjula Bhashini and Others Vs. The Managing Director, A.P. Women’s Co- operative Finance Corporation Ltd. and Another delivered in Civil Appeal No. 3702 of 2006 and batch, decided on 06.07.2009. This writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioners-State to consider the cases of the respondents for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. The District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar, however issued proceedings rejecting the cases of the respondents in the writ petition on the ground that there are no vacancies. After perusing the proceedings, this Court, by order dated 30.08.2010, directed the District Panchayat Officer to file a detailed counter explaining the fresh appointment made in the interregnum. Now, an additional counter affidavit is filed stating that there were 13 last grade posts sanctioned which are continuing and though some of the employees holding those 13 posts have either retired on medical invalidation or for other reasons, their dependents, who had applied on compassionate grounds, were appointed and in view of that no vacancy exists to consider the regularization of the respondents in the writ petition. The counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar, evidently establishes that in the absence of vacancies, the regularization of the respondents in the writ petition could not be made. In that view of the matter, the Contempt Case filed by the respondents is disposed of directing the State, who are respondents, in Contempt Case, to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the order of this Court in W.P. No.25810 of 2002 referred to above as and when vacancies arise keeping in view the seniority of the contempt petitioners and their experience and the fact that they are said to be working even today. No order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 25th February, 2011 _______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J bcj