THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Contempt Case No. 313 of 2010 Dated: 29.09.2010 Between: Pilla Mahalakshmi Naidu, Visakhapatnam District. … Petitioner And The District Cooperative Officer, Visakhapatnam District and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Contempt Case No. 313 of 2010 O R D E R : This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order of this Court in W.P.No.26946 of 2008 dated 31.12.2009. The petitioner herein filed W.P.No.26946 of 2008 seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the Kokkirapalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (for short ‘the society’) dated 01.12.2008 whereunder the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry was arbitrary and illegal. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the enquiry initiated against the petitioner was concluded and by order dated 06.11.2009, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Yellamanchili directed the society to reinstate the petitioner into service. Having taken note of the said fact, the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 31.12.2009 with a direction to the society to take further steps pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Yellamanchili dated 06.11.2009 forthwith provided the same had become final. This contempt case has been filed alleging that in spite of the order of this Court, the petitioner was not even reinstated into service and that he was also not paid the subsistence allowance as per the last pay drawn on 30.06.2008 as per the Minimum Wages Act. Though no counter affidavit is filed, learned counsel appearing for the society on instructions stated that the petitioner was reinstated on 03.07.2010 itself, however, from 10.07.2010 the petitioner went on strike along with the co-employees. Though the strike was called off on 05.08.2010, the petitioner did not choose to attend the duty even thereafter. It is also stated that the said fact was brought to the notice of the Divisional Cooperative Officer by letter dated 21.09.2010 marking a copy to the petitioner for information. The material placed before this Court further shows that the petitioner has also made a representation before the Divisional Cooperative Officer on 06.09.2010 about the non-payment of the subsistence allowance and also complaining about the action of the society in not allowing him to discharge his duties though he reported to duty on 07.07.2010. Pursuant thereto, the Divisional Cooperative Officer by proceedings dated 08.09.2010 called for a report from the society. Thus, it is clear that the grievances of the petitioner are the subject matter of the enquiry pending before the Divisional Cooperative Officer. As a matter of fact, while disposing of W.P.No.26946 of 2008, this Court never issued any direction as such for payment of subsistence allowance. Hence, the allegations against the society are unfounded. Moreover, the petitioner’s claims that though he reported to duty on 07.07.2010 itself, the society did not allow him to discharge the duty has been denied by the society. The Divisional Corporation Officer has already taken up the enquiry and further proceedings are pending. Hence, no further enquiry is necessary in the contempt case and accordingly, the same is closed. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 29.09.2010 KLP