THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Contempt Case No. 194 of 2010 Dated: 09.09.2010 Between: Md.Rahamatulla, Karimhagar. … Petitioners And B.Prasada Rao and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Contempt Case No. 194 of 2010 O R D E R: This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the interim order dated 31.12.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.37227 of 2009 in W.P.No.28631 of 2009 under which the respondents 2 and 3 were directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 07.12.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. The petitioner had retired from service of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 31.08.2009. The petitioner made the representation dated 07.12.2009 claiming payment of amounts as per the award in I.D.No.215 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the Labour Court, Godhavarikhani. Alleging that in spite of the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.37227 of 2009, the respondents failed to consider his representation, this contempt case has been filed. Though no counter affidavit is filed, the learned counsel for the respondent on instructions stated that the petitioner was reinstated into service as per the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.215 of 1989. Thereafter, in compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.37227 of 2009 the petitioner’s claim was further examined and in terms of the award in I.D.No.215 of 1989 in which the reinstatement was ordered with continuity of service, the petitioner was placed in selection grade (grade-1) with effect from 01.07.2008. The said fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However it is contended that the respondents did not pay the retirement benefits in full and still more than Rs.40,000/- is due. Even assuming that any further amounts are due, the same cannot be adjudicated in contempt proceedings. As the fact that the petitioner was placed in Selection Grade with effect from 01.07.2008 taking his appointment as on 20.01.1981 is not disputed before this Court, no further enquiry is necessary in this contempt case and accordingly, the same is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law for redressal of his grievances, if any. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 9.09.2010 KLP