IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1009 of 2011 Between: T. Saraswati … Petitioner And Sri Kantilal Dande The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Rameswara Prasad for Sri V. Mallik This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1009 of 2011 ORDER:- This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 09.11.2010 in Writ Petition No.23540 of 2010. This Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No.23540 of 2010, directed the District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District to consider the petitioner’s representation in the light of G.O.Ms.No.89, dated 29.03.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.454, dated 14.11.2008, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. By proceedings, dated 26.02.2011, the Project Director, DRDA, Ongole, informed the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s application for payment of pension for physically challenged was uploaded in the website, that the organisation SERP releases the pension once in three months and that therefore there was delay in release of pension. It is further informed that soon after the Commissioner of Markapur Municipality sent the order sanctioning pension in favour of the petitioner, the pension order was uploaded in the website and that as soon as the CEO, SERP, Hyderabad releases the pension, the same will be distributed to the petitioner. In my opinion, even though the District Collector has not disposed of the petitioner’s representation, the Project Director, DRDA, who is evidently concerned with the subject, has given appropriate information enumerating the steps leading to sanction of pension by the municipality. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent is guilty of violation of the order of this Court. If the petitioner has not received the pension so far, she may be entitled to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the contempt case is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.08.2011 ES