HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.18 of 2011 in WRIT PETITION No.6720 of 2004 Date: April 13, 2011 Between: Syed Mohammed Ali Hussaini … Petitioner And 1. C.R. Biswal, I.A.S, Secretary, (now re-designated as Principal Secretary), Education Department, State of A.P., Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.18 of 2011 in WRIT PETITION No.6720 of 2004 ORDER: By order dated 05.11.2009 passed in W.P. No.6720 of 2004, this Court directed the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, respondents 1 and 2 therein, to consider the petitioner’s claim for grant of professor scale or any other higher scale on completion of 16 years as Principal, in consultation with the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, and pass reasoned orders thereupon within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s representation. Alleging that in spite of his representation having been submitted on 14.12.2009, the order was not complied with, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. 2. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, filed his counter stating that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, had been consulted and after re-consideration of the matter, the petitioner’s claim had been rejected under proceedings in Rc.No.1436/Admn. V-I/2005 dated 22.02.2011. 3. Sri A. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the manner in which the petitioner’s claim was dealt with, as reflected in the proceeding dated 22.02.2011, was not in keeping with the letter and spirit of the observations made by this Court in its order dated 05.11.2009 in W.P. No.6720 of 2004. It is no doubt true that this Court expressed its anguish in no uncertain terms as to how the petitioner, a septuagenarian pedagogue, was made to run from pillar to post by the authorities. This Court also referred to the fact that though the State Government was said to have been in the process of taking a policy decision for ameliorating the conditions of Principals of private aided colleges, as was mentioned as long back as in September 2006 in the counter filed by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, no such decision had been taken. The proceedings dated 22.2.2011 reflect that the claim of the petitioner was once again rejected on the ground that the scale of pay of Rs.4, 500 – 7,300 was applicable to the post of Professor and no such post was available in the college in which the petitioner taught. This was the same ground on which the earlier rejection, embodied in the proceedings dated 18.11.2002, was issued. 4. However, this Court is conscious of the limitations while exercising contempt jurisdiction. Once the respondents claim to have complied with the direction of this Court by considering the petitioner’s claim and the proceedings dated 22.02.2011 embodied such consideration, it is not for this Court to examine the merits of such compliance in a contempt case. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the proceedings dated 22.02.2011, must necessarily seek redressal by way of an independent proceeding. Though there is delay on the part of the respondents in complying with the order, keeping in mind the time stipulation, there is no evidence that such delay was wilful amounting to commission of contempt as defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5. The contempt case is accordingly closed. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: April 13, 2011. BSB