THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Contempt Case No. 1157 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed complaining that the respondents have violated the directions issued by this court in its judgment dated 15.10.2001 in WP No. 21410 of 2001. It will be worth noticing what has been said by this court in WP No. 21410 of 2001 in its judgment dated 15.10.2001. “Questioning the action of the respondents in not absorbing the petitioner and paying the time scale of pay attached to the post held by him, the present writ petition has been filed. It is conceded across the Bar by the learned counsel of both sides that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this court in WP No. 25861 of 1996, dated 13.9.1997 wherein a learned single Judge of this court following the decision rendered in WP No. 18873 of 1994, dated 22.11.1996 directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners therein and give them regular time scale of pay with effect from the date on which the services of the immediate juniors of the petitioners were regularized, with all consequential benefits. Following the said decision, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated. No costs.” However, after issuance of notice in the above contempt case, the respondent – Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam acting through its Executive Officer passed orders through their proceedings dated 12.2.2011, the operative portion of which it reads as under: “Hence, in view of dismissal of S.L.P. as well as Writ Appeal and in the light of judgment of Hon’ble High Court dated 15.10.2001 in WP No. 21410 of 2001 it is hereby ordered to extend time scale of pay of Rs.6700-20100 to Sri B.Chandra Babu as Cleaner with effect from the date of this order. The regularization of services in respect of Sri B.Chandra Babu will be considered on receipt of orders from the Govt. of A.P. in this regard as well as creation of post. The D.E.O., TTD, Tirupati is requested to take necessary further action accordingly in this regard, besides sending proposals to Govt. for creation of one post of Cleaner to TTD College Hostel.” In view of these orders dated 12.2.2011, the respondents had acted in accordance with the judgment and assigned a time scale of pay to the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the writ petitioner that the respondents have failed to comply with the order of this court completely still remains. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this court to take up the matter by way of a detailed representation with the respondents so that their attention can be specifically drawn to subsisting grievance of the petitioner. Reserving such a liberty to the writ petitioner, I consider it unnecessary to deal with this contempt case any further in view of the proceedings dated 12.2.2011, copy of which is taken on record. Hence, this contempt case is dismissed. But, however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Knk Dt : 16.3.2011