THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1145 OF 2010 Dated: 28.09.2010 Between: Potluri Ankalu ..... PETITIONER AND Mr.Puyush Kumar, District Collector, Krishna District and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1145 OF 2010 ORDER : This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.33871 of 2009 in W.P.No.26016 of 2009, whereunder the respondents were directed to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 30.07.2009 and 09.10.2009 for payment of the retirement benefits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks. It is not in dispute that in compliance with the directions of this Court, the District Panchayat Officer, Krishna District passed an order dated 02.01.2010. However, this contempt case is filed alleging that the action of the respondents in not releasing the retirement benefits except payment of Rs.31,000/- on 22.01.2010, amounts to deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.33871 of 2009 in W.P.No.26016 of 2009 and therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondents and perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 3 and 4. Admittedly, the respondents passed an order in compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.33871 of 2009 in W.P.No.26016 of 2009. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that no further steps have been taken by the respondents for payment of the retirement benefits. Apparently there is no such order by this Court. Even assuming that the 3rd respondent’s order dated 02.01.2010 has not been acted upon, it is for the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law for redressal of his grievance. Hence, this is not a fit case for taking cognizance under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed, granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy as available under law for redressal of his grievance. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 28.09.2010 Ivd