THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:1175 OF 2009 DATE:10.10.2011 BETWEEN …PETITIONER AND …RESPONDENTS. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:1175 of 2009 ORDER: The present contempt case is filed by the petitioner seeking to punish the respondents under sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Court Act for non implementation of the order of this Court dated 24.03.2011 passed in W.P.M.P.No:3965 of 2011 in W.P.No:25764 of 2010. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings in ROC No:892/Estt/NT/C/2010, dated 8.10.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to service rules of the University and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to declare her probation and regularize her service in the post of typist in the 2nd respondent University. The case of the petitioner is that she qualified in Intermediate examination in the year 1985 and also qualified in Lower Grade Typewriting in the year 1986 and she was appointed as an attender in Sree Padmavathi Mahila Vidyalayam, Tirupathi, in the pay scale of Rs.290-5-345-425 vide appointment order No:6000-ET/87, dated 24.11.1987 through process of selection and her services were regularized in the year 1989. It is her further case that as per the staffing pattern of the 1st respondent, there are 7 posts of typists and as on 31.3.1999, out of 7 sanctioned posts, three (3) posts were filled up by direct recruitment and three (3) posts were filled up by way of promotion and still there was sanctioned post remained vacant even in the year 1995. Therefore, she made a representation to the 2nd respondent and pursuant to the same, her case was considered and promoted to the post of typist in the vacant post vide proceedings No:701/Estt/ET/C/2007, dated 5.5.2007. While so, she received the impugned proceedings in Roc.No:892/Estt/NT/C/2010, dated 8.10.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent seeking to revert her from the post of typist to that of the attender with effect from 23.5.2007. Challenging the same, she filed the writ petition. Along with the writ petition, she also filed W.P.M.P.3965 of 2011 seeking for a direction to the respondents to revise the pay scales on par with the non teaching employees of the respondent University and extend all the consequential benefits to her. By order dated 24.3.2011, this Court granted the following order: “The case of the petitioner is that during the pendency of the writ petition, similarly situated persons are paid the revised pay scales and therefore, she is also entitled for the same. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be interim direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to pay the salary in the revised pay scales applicable to the petitioner” In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it is stated that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner made a representation dated 7.4.2011 seeking to implement the order passed by this Court on 24.3.2011. But, the respondents have not implemented the order. Therefore, she got issued a contempt case dated 24.6.2011 calling upon the respondents to implement the order passed by this Court. In spite of the same, the respondents have not implemented the order. On behalf of the respondents, while placing before this Court a copy of the proceedings No:SPMVV/ESTT/NT/D/2011, dated 6.9.2011 issued by the Registrar of the University, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in compliance of the order of this Court, the proceedings dated 6.9.2011 have been issued informing the petitioner that since no other similarly situated persons are given the benefit of revised pay scales 2010, her request for sanctioning revised pay scales is not complied with. It is further contended that on verification, no similarly situated persons have been granted the revised pay scales and as such, the case of the petitioner could not be considered. However, the issuance of the proceedings dated 6.9.2011 informing the petitioner that her request for sanctioning revised pay scales cannot be complied with on the ground that no similarly situated persons have been extended the said benefit, amounts to compliance of the order of this Court. In view of the proceedings issued by the Registrar of the University dated 6.9.2011 coupled with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that the issuance of the proceedings dated 6.9.2011 itself, amounts to compliance of the order of this Court and therefore, the question of contemptuous acts on the part of the respondents does not arise. Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed. No costs. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from questioning the proceedings dated 6.9.2011. ______________________ Justice G.Chandraiah. Gurc. Date:10.10.2011 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPAT CASE NO:1175 OF 2009 DATE:10.10.2011