IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.662 OF 2009 Between: 1. S.Srinivasa Rao 2. R.Venkata Gangadhara Rao ......petitioners AND 1. V.Sreerama Rao, The District Cooperative Officer,Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. K.V.Raja Rao, The Divisional Cooperative officer,Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 3. Y.Satya Purushothama Dass, President,The Srinivasa Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Sripalli, Inavalli Mandal, East Godavari District. ......Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: L.V.S.Nagaraju Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following:- ORDER: This Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has been filed by the petitioners alleging that the respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court vide Order, dated 02.01.2007, passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.35148 of 2006 in W.P.No.27376 of 2006. The petitioners have filed W.P.No.27376 of 2006, questioning letter dated 30-11-2006, issued by the 3rd respondent- Srinivasa Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited, Siripalli, Inavalli Mandal, East Godavari District, terminating their services therefrom. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court vide interim order, dated 02.01.2007, granted interim direction to the respondents to continue the petitioners in service. In this Contempt Case, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents have failed to comply with the said direction. In the counter-affidavit filed by the President of the 3rd respondent- Society, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the order of termination was passed on 30.11.2006 and only after paying an amount of Rs.850/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1350/- to the 2nd petitioner towards one month advance pay, their services were discontinued from 30.11.2006. It is further stated that a vacate petition was filed subsequently, but the impugned order was made absolute. When the matter has come up for hearing on the last occasion, the learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Society submitted that there is no violation of the impugned order of this Court as the petitioners were terminated from service on 30.11.2006 itself and they were not in service on the date of the impugned order. When the matter is taken up today, the learned Counsel submitted that there is no obligation on the third respondent-Society to take the petitioners back into service, but, in view of pendency of the Writ Petition, they have re-instated the petitioners into service, subject to its outcome. In view of the averments made by the President of the 3rd respondent-Society in his counter-affidavit, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully and deliberately violated the directions issued by this Court. In any event, having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners were re-instated into service during the pendency of the Contempt Case, it is not a case to proceed further under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. __________________ (R.Subhash Reddy, J) 17th August, 2009. Ivd/ lur