IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 402 OF 2010 Between: K.B.Kistaiah ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Prasada Rao, MD & VC APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others .... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 402 OF 2010 O R D E R: W.P.No.23243 of 2009 was disposed of by this Court at the stage of admission by order dated 29.10.2009, with directions as under: “ Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the respondents ventilating his grievances with regard to his claim for additional monitory benefits and also for the amounts to be paid towards the out of service period. If any such representation is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders be passed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner. No costs.” Alleging that though the petitioner made a representation on 25.11.2009, the respondents failed to consider his claim, this contempt case has been filed. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation under instructions stated that the order of this Court has been complied with and a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been paid to the petitioner after filing the present contempt case. Though the said fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is contended that as per the calculation memo enclosed to the representation, the petitioner is entitled to receive more than Rs.3,00,000/- and therefore, the payment of a meagre sum of Rs.30,000/- cannot be held to be in compliance with the order of this Court. It is to be noticed that while making the payment of Rs.30,000/- the respondents passed an order dated 20.03.2010 under which the details of the amounts paid to the petitioner have been furnished. In the circumstances, if aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law for redressal of his further grievances if any. Whether the amount already paid to the petitioner is in full satisfaction of his claim or not is not a matter to be enquired into in this contempt case. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed, granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to institute fresh proceedings by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law. No costs. ____________ Date: 12.04.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd