THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.551 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners filed W.P.No.24350 of 2010 challenging the steps taken by the respondent-Andhra Pradesh Pragathi Grameena Bank (for short ‘the Bank’) to join certain persons against various posts. In W.P.M.P.No.31174 of 2010, this Court passed an order on 01.10.2010 directing that in case the petitioners are working with the Bank in any capacity, they shall be continued on the same terms until further orders. A further direction was issued to the effect that in case the recruitment process results in displacement of the petitioners, further steps shall be deferred until further orders. This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents have violated the orders of this Court. The petitioners contend that taking exception to the interim order passed by this Court, the respondents have discontinued the petitioners from service and that in spite of repeated requests, they have not engaged them. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. The manner in which the work of sweeping was being attended to is mentioned. It is stated that none of the petitioners were appointed through any written orders and that as on the date of the order passed by this Court, none of the petitioners were in service in any capacity. Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were very much in service, though on a part-time basis and as a vindictive measure, the respondents have discontinued the petitioners from service after receiving the copy of the interim order. Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that at no point of time, the petitioners were engaged as Sweepers or other employees even on part-time basis and the respondents did not violate the interim orders passed by this Court. The contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal nature. It is only when the alleged violation is proved beyond pale of doubt, that any relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners. The interim order is to the effect that in case the petitioners are in service of the Bank in any capacity, they shall be continued until further orders. Unless the petitioners proved that they were in service in one capacity or the other as on the date of filing of the writ petition and were discontinued thereafter, the respondents cannot be hauled for contempt. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not placed before this Court any material, to prove that the petitioners were in service. Further, a notice got issued on behalf of one of the petitioners is to the effect that the respondents may reengage him. That obviously means that the particular petitioner was not in service by the time the writ petition was filed or the interim order was passed. The ultimate relief that can be granted in favour of the petitioners needs to be considered in the writ petition. This Court does not find any contempt on the part of the respondents. Hence, the contempt case is closed. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:15.06.2011 kdl