THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:309 of 2010 DATE:12.9.2011 BETWEEN M.SOLEMAN. …PETITIONER AND Y.V.N.RAO. …RESPONDENT. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:309 of 2010 ORDER: The present contempt case is filed by the petitioner seeking to punish the respondent under sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Court Act for willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 28.8.2008 passed in W.P.No:241 of 2002. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare the Memo No:C2/63- 68-90-1208, dated 27.1.1990 passed by the respondent rejecting the request to fix his pay as per the Pay Revision took place in the years 1974, 1978 and also in the year 1986 on par with his juniors particularly one Mr.K.Ramakrishna who was appointed subsequent to him as Cook on 10.12.1970 in the pay scale of Rs.80-4-100-6- 160 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law and contrary to the orders of the Government from time to time and also contrary to the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent to fix his pay of scale in the revised pay scales as per G.O.No:107 (P.W.III) Department dated 7.2.1974 appropriately on par with his junior Mr.K.Ramakrishna and grant all consequential benefits. By order dated 28.8.2008, the said writ petition was disposed of as under: “In view of the above reasons, the impugned order dated 27.1.1990 is set aside and the respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for sanction of pay scale on par with his juniors afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Basing on the order of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has not considered the case of the petitioner on par with his junior i.e., Sri K.Ramakrishna and therefore, the respondents are liable for contempt for violation of the order passed by this Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the respondent issued the proceedings in Rc.No:AD- 3/2010/3128, dated 16.12.2010 and therefore, it amounts to compliance of the order of this Court. It is obvious from the material on record that though the order passed by this Court has been complied with by way of issuing the proceedings dated 16.12.2010, but the said compliance was not made within the time stipulated. In this regard, the respondents have filed an additional counter explaining the reasons for delay in passing the above proceedings. The reasoning that has been given in the additional counter, which is just and proper, appears to be a bonafide one and therefore, the same is accepted. This Court directed the respondents only to consider the request of the petitioner and in pursuance of the same, after considering the case of the petitioner once again, the respondent has passed the order dated 16.12.2010 wherein it is stated thus: “In obedience of the orders of the Honourable High Court, the matter is examined once again. It is found that since the pay anomaly was rectified on par with his junior Sri K.Ramakrishna by taking into his services and he was paid all the scales and arrears and also the benefit of Special Grade Post on completion of 10 years, Special Adhoc Promotion Post Scale II on completion of 22 years of service by counting his service from the date of his original appointment i.e., 14.7.1967 on par with his junior. There was neither any pay anomaly nor the individual suffered any loss. Hence, his request is considered and rejected accordingly.” The above order makes it clear that the pay anamoly was rectified on par with his junior viz., Sri K.Ramakrishna and the consequential benefits were also given to him on par with his juniors and apart from that, the said order has been passed in compliance of the order of this Court. In view of this, it can be said that there is substantial compliance of the order of this Court and therefore, the question of alleged disobedience of the order of this Court, does not arise. Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed. No costs. However, it is open to the petitioner to question the validity of the proceedings issued by the respondent in Rc.No:AD- 3/2010/3128, dated 16.12.2010, if he is so advised. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah. Gurc. Date:12.09.2011 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:309 of 2010 DATE:12.09.2011