IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1108 of 2010 Between: N. Sathemma ..... PETITIONER AND Smt.Dhamayanthi and others ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This contempt case has been filed complaining disobedience of the order dated 12-03-2009 in W.P.M.P.No.4153 of 2009 in W.P.No.3203 of 2009. 2. The interim order passed in W.P.M.P.No.4153 of 2009 in W.P.No.3203 of 2009 reads as follows: “Counter affidavit not filed. Rule nisi. Call for records. Notice returnable in four weeks. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to revise pay scale benefit under Circular dated 7-5-2007 issued by the Secretary, A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad. In that view of the matter, there shall be interim direction to the respondent No.1 to fix the pay of the petitioner, pursuant to the Circular, dated 7-5-2007, if she is otherwise eligible for the same, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 3. Sri.K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and appropriate proceeding has been issued and the same has been communicated to the petitioner. 4. The factual aspect of communicating the proceeding to the petitioner is not contradicted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been unjustly denied the benefit of pay scales while allowing the same benefits to the others. 5. The question whether the denial of pay scales to the petitioner is justified or not is beyond the scope of Contempt Case. It is suffice to say that respondents 1 to 3 considered the representation and passed appropriate orders and communicated the proceeding to the petitioner. 6. Such is the situation, nothing survives in this Contempt Case for adjudication and accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed as redundant. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J January 28, 2011. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASENo.1108 of 2010 January 28, 2011