THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE No.1192 of 2006 Dated 06th November, 2009 Between: Smt.G.Tejamma …Petitioners AND Smt. Y.V.Anuradha, I.A.S, Director, Women Development & Child Welfare Department, A.P., Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE No.1192 of 2006 ORDER: (Per the Ho’nble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Alleging willful and deliberate violation of the interim orders passed by this Court, in W.P.No.14338 of 2006, dated 17-08-2006, the present contempt case is filed. This Court by the aforesaid order, while directing the respondents to complete the enquiry pursuant to the charge-memo dated 12-01-1998 within six months from the date of receipt of the order, directed that the petitioner be continued to be paid pension till completion of disciplinary proceedings, including arrears of the pension due and payable to him. The learned Government Pleader for Services II has placed before this Court a copy of the computation statement and would submit that the petitioner has been paid the entire amount due towards arrears of pension. Sri M.Balagangadharaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, on completion of the disciplinary enquiry, the petitioner was imposed the punishment of withholding 50% of his pension with retrospective effect. The learned Government Pleader for Services II, would, however, dispute this contention. The scope of enquiry in contempt proceedings is extremely limited and it is only when a clear case of willful and deliberate violation of its order is made out would this Court interfere. If the petitioner has any grievance on the punishment imposed, it is for him to avail such remedies as are available to him in Law. Under the guise of contempt proceedings the petitioner cannot have the order of punishment set at naught. Since the learned Government Pleader for Services II has submitted that the entire arrears of pension has already been paid in compliance with the aforesaid order of this Court, we do not see any reason to examine the matter any further. The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed. No costs. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt: 06-11-2009 Grk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN (Per the Ho’nble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) CONTEMPT CASE No.1192 of 2006 Dated 06th November 2009