THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CONTEMPT CASE No.433 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed complaining willful disobedience on the part of the respondent in complying with the order dated 18.01.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.No.28500 of 2007, whereunder the respondent was directed to dispose of the representation purported to have been made by the petitioner on 22.10.2007, for releasing annual grade increments due from 1995 to 1997, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has asserted that as against the rejection order dated 30.01.1998 passed in the appeal preferred before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager (Rural) Vijayawada, confirming the punishment inflicted on him to the effect of reducing his basic pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period undergone by him as ‘Not on Duty’ and recovering an amount of Rs.1,000/- from his salary towards cost of damages, he preferred review petition before the Regional Manager, Vijayawada Region, and the same was allowed modifying the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect to that of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect, and basing on this assertion, the writ petition was disposed of as stated supra. But, in fact, no such review petition was preferred by the petitioner, and since the order, non-compliance of which is complained in the present contempt case, has been passed based on the wrong assertion of the petitioner, the question of its compliance does not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to furnish a copy of the order purported to have been passed in the review petition stated to have been preferred by the petitioner, to rebut the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the above, the contempt case is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 31.05.2010 v v