THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO.676 OF 2009 DT.11.03.2010 Between: Bandi Padma …………Petitioner Vs. Sutirtha and two others ……….Respondents. O R D E R: 1) The contempt case is filed seeking to punish the respondents by summoning them under the relevant provisions of Contempt case of Courts Act for gross deliberate violation of the orders of this Court dated 20.06.2008 passed in W.P.No.23148 of 1998. 2) The petitioner filed W.P.No.23148 of 2008 seeking for writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay all the service benefits such as family pension, gratuity and other consequential and attendant benefits along with appropriate interest at the rate of 24% per annum by setting aside the impugned Memo No.DEE/O/VZM/Adm/U1/D.No.166/97, dated 20.01.1997 passed by the third respondent-Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), Vizianagaram. 3) While setting aside the impugned order, this court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of family pension and gratuity afresh, by giving sufficient opportunity and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said order. 4) The case of the petitioner is that her husband, namely, late Krishna was appointed as Helper in the respondent Board on 20.04.1984. While he was in service, he was suffering from chronic Hepatitis and Cirrhosis diseases. He applied for earned leave from 17.6.1989 to 30.6.1989 and subsequently due to total failure of hepatic system and as he could not go to the office, the petitioner submitted a letter for extension of leave in the office and informed about the ill-health of her husband. Eventually the husband of the petitioner died on 6.5.1991 leaving her, his old aged widowed mother and two minor children. The petitioner approached the third respondent for service benefits and submitted all the documents in original, but the third respondent vide memo dated 20.01.1997 rejected the sanction of family pension and gratuity on the ground that her husband was un-authorisedly absent from 1.7.1989. Since the employment of her husband was the only source of income and that before rejecting the proposals sent for sanction of family pension and gratuity, no enquiry or any notice was issued, she filed the said writ petition. 5) This court while setting aside the said impugned order, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension and gratuity to the petitioner by giving an opportunity to the petitioner. In pursuance to the order passed by this court, the petitioner complained that the said order has not been complied with by the respondents. Hence, the present contempt case is filed. 6) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents denying the averments and allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, iner alia, it is stated that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Helper with effect from 20.4.1985 and discharged the duties under Assistant Divisional Engineer/Elecl/Distribution/Vizianagaram. While he was working in Distribution Sub-Division, he has applied earned leave from 17.6.1989 to 30.6.1989. Subsequently, no application for extension of leave has been received nor he turned up for duty. There is no record in proof of his ill-health as stated by the petitioner. The fact of his death has also not been informed to the office till she submitted an application seeking sanction of pensionary benefits. As per the Death Certificate produced by the petitioner along with the application for sanction of pension, he died on 6.5.1991. The petitioner approached the office of the third respondent for sanction of pensionary benefits subsequent to the death of her husband. The proposals to ensure the admissibility of pensionary benefits in this case have been processed to the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Vizianagaram. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Vizianagaram has made it clear that pensionary benefits are not admissible in his case stating that her husband died while he was on unauthorised absence for more than one year 10 months. Thereafter, same fact has been intimated to the petitioner vide office Memo dated 20.01.1997. It is also stated that as per Regulation 28 (3) of A.P.S.E.B. Service Regulation Part-1, any employee of the Board who remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for continuous period of one year shall be deemed to have resigned from Service from the date of absence and shall automatically cease to be in Board employment. Therefore, the husband of the petitioner who was absconded from 1.7.1989 onwards, has been treated as ceased to be in Board Employment with effect from that date. The said provision is available in A.P.S.E.B. Service Regulations where the procedure like issue of notices and appointment of Enquiry Officer, etc., in such cases are not contemplated. Since the provision itself is self explanatory, in such cases, employees are automatically cease to be in Board Employment. It is also stated that the petitioner herself submitted a leave letter for extension in the office and explained the position of her husband to the officials is not at all correct but only concocted. No record in support of her claiming is available in the office nor she could be able to produce the same with the affidavit. Therefore, it is stated that for all purposes, the husband of the petitioner is ceased to be in employment of the Board with effect from 1.7.1989. It is also stated that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for since the deceased has ceased to be in employment of the Board from 1.7.1989 onwards. Eventhough he has died on 6.5.1991, the petitioner never approached the office of the respondent and evidently she knows that she is not entitled for any relief. It is after six years from the date of death of her husband, she has put an application for pensionary benefits. Therefore, even from the point of time, the claim is very badly delayed and not admissible. The communication issued in the office memo, dt.20.1.1997 is in response to her application enquiring the admissibility of the pensionary benefits. Either her application or the communication of the office of the respondent dated 20.1.1997 do not confer on her any right to the benefits of pension, gratuity, etc. It is also stated that no proof of material has been filed to prove the ill-health of the husband of the petitioner. As per Regulation 28(3) part-1 “any employee of the Board who remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for a continuous period of one year shall be deemed to have resigned from service from the date of absence and shall automatically cease to be in Board Employment.” Therefore, the petitioner’s husband is ceased to be the employee of the Board and he is not entitled for any benefits. In pursuance of the orders dated 20.6.2008 speaking orders were issued vide Memo No.Lr.No.DEE/O/VZM/ADM/JAO/D.No.1604/09, dt.4.7.2009. Therefore, the contempt case is liable to be dismissed. 7) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was an employee of the respondents, who died during the course of his employment. Therefore, the petitioner made an application for grant of pensionary benefits, which was rejected by the respondents by impugned memo dated 20.1.1997. Questioning the said memo, W.P.No.23148 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner. This court while setting aside the impugned memo, dated 20.1.1997 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension and gratuity afresh, by giving sufficient opportunity and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Hence, the present contempt case has been filed complaining that the said order of this court has not been complied with by the respondents. 8) Counter affidavit filed by the respondents reveals that in pursuance of the orders passed by this court dated 20.06.2008, speaking orders were issued vide memo No.Lr.No.DEE/O/VZM/ADM/JAO/D.No.1604, dated 4.7.2009. Therefore, I do not see any reason to show that the respondents have committed wilful dis-obedience to the orders of this court. 9) Therefore, the contempt case is closed. It is open for the petitioner to question the validity of the memo, dated 4.7.2009 issued by the respondents. _______________ G.CHANDRAIAH J., Dt.11.03.2010 tjs