THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.C.NO.894 OF 2009 21ST AUGUST 2009 BETWEEN: M.KRISHNA .. PETITIONER V. Y.RAM MOHAN RAO AND OTHER . RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.C.NO.894 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.3115 of 2009 complaining disobedience of the order dated 18.2.2009. 2. Notice before admission has been ordered on 10.7.2009. The respondents entered appearance through a counsel. R2 filed counter affidavit. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is R1 who is competent to consider the representation of the petitioner and since he has not considered the representation despite the direction given in the writ petition, he is liable to be prosecuted for violation of the orders of this court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is R2 who is competent to consider the representation and accordingly the representation of the petitioner has been considered and proceedings has been issued on 21.4.2009 and it amounts to compliance of the order passed in the writ petition. 6. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that his representation-dated 5.1.2009 has not been considered. The writ petition came to be disposed of with the following direction: “ The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation, dated 5.1.2009 submitted to the second respondent is not being forwarded to the first respondent to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Leading Hand. Such is the situation; the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, directing the second respondent to forward the representation-dated 5.1.2009 of the petitioner to the first respondent. Thereupon, the first respondent has to consider the said representation in accordance with the Rules/Regulations in force, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.” 7. It appears R1 addressed a letter to the petitioner requesting him to furnish a representation dated 5.1.2009. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted representation through legal notice dated 15.4.2009. R2 considered the representation of the petitioner dated 5.1.2009 and issued proceedings dated 21.4.2009. The relevant portion of the proceeding reads as under: “ During the selections conducted on 6.2.2009 15 candidates from different categories of artisans were selected to the post of Leading Hand in the order of above seniority list of cessation of Leading Hands. No candidate from the category of Mill Wright Mechanic was selected to the post of Leading Hand since no Leading Hand promoted from the category of M.W.Mechanic was ceased from Leading Hand post among first 15 candidates in the seniority list of cessation of Leading Hands. It is clear that no employee in the category of M.W.Mech., who is Junior to the petitioner, was promoted as Leading Hand. As and when a chance arises to the artisan of M.W.Mechanic for promotion to the post of Leading Hand, the case of petitioner will be considered as per his seniority since he is working as M.W.Mechanic. Seniority zone for the purpose of considering artisans for promotion to the post of Leading Hand is the seniority of entire Bus Body Building Workshop, but not the seniority of each Unit like Mill Wright Section, Painting Section etc. The petitioner, Sri.M.Krishna, E.077776, M.W.Mechanic of BBW, Miyapur has to wait for being considered for promotion to the post of Leading Hand till an opportunity arises to the candidates working in the category of Mill Wright Mechanic for promotion to the post of Leading Hand. At such time, the petitioner’s case can be considered for promotion to the post of Leading Hand as per his seniority.” 8. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it is R1 who has to consider the representation and therefore the proceedings issued by R2 cannot be construed as in accordance with the direction given by this Court in the writ petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for R2 submits that R2 is superior authority than R1 and he is competent to consider the representation and accordingly representation of the petitioner has been considered and proceedings dated 21.4.2009 came to be issued. 10. R2 is the Works Manager and whereas R1 is the Labour Welfare and Industrial Relation Officer. Learned counsel appearing for R2 asserts that R2 is the superior authority to R1 and he is the competent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner. Such is the situation, the proceedings issued by R2 cannot be faulted with. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings issued by R2, he is at liberty to challenge the same by taking recourse to law. 11. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. 21st AUGUST, 2009. ( B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J ) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.C.NO.894 OF 2009 21st AUGUST, 2009.